linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Use faster check for modules in backtrace on 64bit

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:	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:42:12 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	dave@...1.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	eranian@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Use faster check for modules in backtrace on 64bit

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> This has the (small) potential to get a false positive on a pointer to a
> data segment in a module.  However since we also use the frame pointer
> chain as initial sanity check I think the danger of this is very low.
> 

So this has come up several times; and the answer has always been, why
not make the __module_address() thing a rb-tree instead of a linear
loop. So I suppose I'll ask that again, why not?


--
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/