linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly files

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: <20081217173824.GF8078@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:38:24 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/many] PROC macro to annotate functions in assembly
	files

[Sam Ravnborg - Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 06:26:40PM +0100]
| On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
| > Introduce the PROC macro in the generic header file
| > include/linux/linkage.h to annotate functions in assembly
| > files. This is a first step to fully annotate functions
| > (procedures) in .S-files. The PROC macro complements the
| > already existing and being used ENDPROC macro. The generic
| > implementation of PROC is exactly the same as ENTRY.
| > 
| > The goal is to annotate functions, at least those called
| > from C code, with PROC at the beginning and ENDPROC at the
| > end. This is for the benefit of debugging and tracing. It
| > will also allow to introduce a framework to check for
| > nesting problems and missing annotations in a later stage
| > by overriding ENTRY/END and PROC/ENDPROC in architecture-
| > specific code, after the annotation errors have been fixed.
| > 
| > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
| > Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
| > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
| 
| I understand where you are coming from with these.
| But what I see now is:
| 
| ENTRY/END
| PROC/ENDPROC
| KPROBE_ENTRY/KPROBE_END
| 
| And it is not obvious for me reading the comment when I should
| expect which one to be used.
| 
| Could we try to keep it down to two variants?
| And then document when to use which one.
| 
| 	Sam
| 

Sam, I think eventually we should get something like this:

- KPROBE will be eliminated and explicit section descriptions
  are to be used
- ENTRY could be used / or renamed for something more descriptive
  and being used aligned jmp targets or in case of procs with
  shared body
- PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called
  mostly from C code

Did I miss something? Does it sound like a good/bad plan?

		- 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/