linux-kernel - Re: [RFC -tip] x86: introduce ENTRY(KPROBE)_X86 assembly helpers to catch unbalanced declaration

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:	Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:46:52 +0100
From:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC -tip] x86: introduce ENTRY(KPROBE)_X86  assembly helpers to catch unbalanced declaration

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 09:21:03PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [Sam Ravnborg - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:12:48PM +0100]
> ...
> | > 
> | > I don't have -next tree on my laptop, neither cross-compile tools but
> | > if someone could test it -- it would be great. But I used gas macros
> | > here -- i doubt other architectures has the same syntax. At least
> | > PDP-11 would beat us with ';' symbol :)
> | 
> | If we include this in any of the 100+ trees that Stephen sucks
> | into -next we will get it tried out.
> | 
> | Ingo has so and so does others so getting it into -next
> | is rather easy. Then the automated builds will tell of if
> | it fails on any of the toolchains used there.
> | 
> | 	Sam
> | 
> 
> Sam, to be clear, you mean that I could put this stuff into general
> include/linux/linkage.h with general names as ENTRY/END and the same
> for KPROBE so it could be merged into -next tree for testing? If yes,
> that as I said there will be a lot of errors so build will stuck in
> a moment 'cause of unbalanced ENTRY. Not sure if it's a good idea :)

Hi Cyrill,

Aborting might be a bit to heavyhanded for -next. Maybe you should
prepare a version that only gives a warning for the first problem
it encounters per file? That would be fine in -next.

Greetings,
	Alexander

> 		- Cyrill -
--
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/