linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] jump label: updates for 2.6.37

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1290548527.30543.401.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:42:07 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
	hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, andi@...stfloor.org,
	roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
	fweisbec@...il.com, avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	sam@...nborg.org, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
	michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] jump label: updates for 2.6.37

On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 16:27 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> A few jump label patches that I want considered for 2.6.37. Patches are against
> the latest -tip tree.

I can see patch 2 and 3 going to 2.6.37, but patch 1 seems a bit too
big. If it is not a true fix for anything and is just a design change,
then lets hold off till 2.6.38.


> 
> The first one, which adds 'state' to the jump label mechanism is the most
> important. Essentially, it ensures that if jump labels are enabled/disabled in
> the core kernel but the actual call sites are in modules, we properly honor the
> state of the jump label. This also works for jump labels which may be defined in
> one module but made use of in another module.

What happens if we don't do this. What does "honoring" the state
actually mean?


> 
> There has been some discussion about using the 'key' variable to store the
> enabled/disabled state for each jump label. However, I think a better design
> will be to use the 'key' variable to store a pointer to the appropriate jump
> label tables. In this way, we can enable/disable jump labels, without the
> hashing that I'm currently doing. However, I didn't want to propose these more
> invasive changes until 2.6.38. 

I'm thinking even patch 1 is too invasive. Unless it crashes or truly
breaks something without the change.

Patch 2 is small and reasonable, and patch 3 is just documentation
changes. Both OK for an -rc update.

-- Steve


--
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/