| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:28:41 +0100 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, ananth@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu, mhiramat@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, hskinnemoen@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kprobes: Add kprobes smoke tests that run on boot > I have no problem with that, but if we want to make it buildable as a > module, the call to get_kprobe() needs to be replaced with some other > gcc-inline-defeating mechanism, or we need to export get_probe(). I It's still unclear where noinline does not work (do you have details on that? It sounds a little dubious) but there are lots of different other ways to prevent gcc from inlining anything. e.g. you can use stdarg or computed goto or a variable length local array > much prefer the former, since get_kprobe() is a kprobes-internal > function. > > Anybody know an architecture-independent way (other than noinline, which > doesn't always work) of making gcc decide not to inline a function? Details? > E.g., does taking (and using) the function's address do it? No, that just creates another out of line copy. -Andi -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists