| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1316676488.2053.9.camel@linaro1> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:28:08 +0100 From: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <jon.medhurst@...aro.org> To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@...aro.org>, Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Add unwinding annotations for 64bit division functions On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 12:55 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Instructions such as VFP, kprobes tracing, etc are expected fault > locations, and those are fairly well controlled where they can be placed. > With things like ftrace, it certainly is the case that the unwinder can > theoretically be called from almost anywhere in a function. Actually, kprobes can be places on any instruction in the kernel that isn't in the section .kprobes.text. I also strongly suspect that stack unwinding won't happen correctly across the boundary between the kprobes handling code and the function which was probed - there's an awful lot of stack jiggery pokery going on there. -- Tixy -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists