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]

Message-ID: <20140929152145.GB1629@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:21:45 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, dave@...1.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Use faster check for modules in backtrace on 64bit

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 01:42:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?

Why do things complicated, if they can be done simple too?

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/