| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:30:23 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 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 08:21:45AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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? Also I investigated it now, but we don't have RCU support for rbtrees. So it would need some kind of locking for the reader, which is a show stopper. -Andi -- 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