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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:03:25 +0300
From:	"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	"Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc:	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>, 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

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Alexander van Heukelum
<heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:
[...]
>> >
>> > 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
>
> I don't think ENTRY should be used for nested procedures. If the
> author wants to do something like that, he better knew something
> about the assembler anyhow.

Author anyway have to knew something. We can't bring some kind
of lexical machine that eliminate this needing :)

>
>> > - PROC/ENDPROC are to replace old ENTRY/END for procs being called
>> >   mostly from C code
>
> Currently there is many different patterns. Some functions use ENTRY
> without END, some use ENTRY/ENDPROC, some use ENDPROC without annotation
> at the start...

Alexander, I was just trying to say Sam about what we're planning to get
at the end of all this procedure. I mean I know there are some issues to
be fixed first.

Fix me if I'm wrong.

>
>> So what prevents us from extending ENTRY/END instead of introducing
>> another set?
>
> ENTRY/END alone is not enough if one wants to be able to distinguish
> between code (functions) and non-executed data.
>
>> Let us try to extend what we have and not introduce something new.
>
> Agreed. I vote to complement the existing ENDPROC annotation with
> the proposed PROC annotation. Let's call that an extension, not
> something new ;). As it stands it is not impossible to go with
> ENTRY/ENDPROC for code and ENTRY/END for data. However, ENTRY
> implies alignment and the prefered alignment for code and data
> might differ.

If ENTRY will be used for data objects it shouldn't contain any kind of
alignment since in general we could have arrays of bytes, words and so on.

>
> Greetings,
>    Alexander
>
>>       Sam
> --
>  Alexander van Heukelum
>  heukelum@...tmail.fm
--
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/