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]

Message-ID: <20081123190025.GD21106@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 23 Nov 2008 20:00:25 +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:

> [Ingo Molnar - Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 07:54:17PM +0100]
> | 
> | * 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
> | 
> 
> So be it :) Btw I think Alexander is right -- better to use .warning 
> instead of .error (and without .abort) even on x86. Could you update 
> Ingo?

.error is perfectly fine because that way automated tests that we do 
on -tip will catch any bugs, we really dont want to mis-annotate these 
things. Warnings tend to only pile up and rarely get fixed - without 
enforcement mechanism that causes people to fix them.

	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/