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 19:54:17 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	"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


* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> 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 :)

neither do i think it's a particularly good idea. Lets first prototype 
it on x86, see how it works out in practice, and then see whether it 
can be generic. Then it can just be lifted into the generic linkage.h 
separately, and we can then see whether it causes new problems. 

	Ingo
--
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/