[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YAlkOFwkb6/hFm1Q@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:23:36 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support for arm64
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:08:23PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 11:26, Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com> wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with toolcahin code models, but would this approach be
> > able to validate assembly code (either inline or in assembly files?)
> >
>
> No, it would not. But those files are part of the code base, and can
> be reviewed and audited.
x86 has a long history if failing at exactly that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists