linux-kernel - Re: KASAN_INLINE && patchable-function-entry

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:27:54 +0100
From:   Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: KASAN_INLINE && patchable-function-entry

Hi Mark!

On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:36:32 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
[...]
> Was it intended that -fpatachable-function-entry behaved differently
> from -pg in this regard?

No way! I tried to model it as closely as possible along the established
instrumentation mechanism(s).

> Is this likely to be problematic for other users?

I don't think "likely" is the right word here. "rare" would be even
worse. One corner case is more than enough.

> Are there other implicitly-generated functions we need to look out for
> here, for which this would be a problem?
> 
> It looks like this also applies to __attribute__((naked)) on ARM,

IMHO gcc should instrument neither implicitly-generated nor naked
functions in this way. Anybody with reasonable objections please speak
up now.

I'd call it a gcc bug; but it may take a few days...

	Torsten