linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s

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:	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:36:19 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing crashes with the unwind information being wrong. It is
> solely you who was claiming (without proof) years ago that the
> unwinder repeatedly caused issues.

Umm. We had oopses showing it. Several times.

> Yes, we did find a bug or two over the years in it

.. and you and Andi repeatedly refused to make the code more robust
when I asked.

Which is why I don't work with Andi or you directly any more, and why
the code got entirely removed when I got fed up with the last time it
crashed in ways that it *wouldn't* have crashed if it had been made
more robust.

Every time there were just excuses. Like now. "All code has bugs".
Sure. But debugging code had better be better than "all code", and it
had better be written to be robust, and it had better not make bugs
more _likely_ either by failing, or by making the non-debug code
harder to read.

I'm done with your crazy unwinder games. We removed a lot of CFI stuff
entirely because it made the asm code hard to read. Much of it ended
up getting re-introduced when you made the infrastructure more
bearable.

But this patch I NAK'ed because the code is not readable, and the
infrastructure is not bearable.

Live with it.

                      Linus
--
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/