linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

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]

Message-ID: <44EC27DF.2010204@vmware.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:03:11 -0700
From:	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] paravirt.h

Andi Kleen wrote:
>> And the functions they call?
>>     
>
> Yes. But you only really need it for the actual callback, not the bulk
> of stop_machine_run() (which calls scheduler and lots of other stuff)
> The actual callback should be pretty limited already so it shouldn't
> be a big limitation.
>
> -Andi
>   

Hmm.  Seems dangerous to rely on this, because functions could change 
from inline to out of line without people noticing that it affects this 
very corner case for kprobes + paravirt + stop_machine.  Is there a way 
to cascade the __kprobes declaration to all called functions, perhaps 
with a static checker, like sparse?

Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/