linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce push/pop macros which generate CFI_REL_OFFSET and CFI

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: <20150112193704.GG3904@pd.tnic>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:37:04 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce push/pop macros which generate
 CFI_REL_OFFSET and CFI_RESTORE

Andy, please trim your replies.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:25:39AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think that some users don't want the CFI_REL_OFFSET.

Why? I thought those two annotations are independent? As you said:

"IOW, one is to keep the stack frame tracking consistent and the other
is to tell the unwinder about the register we just saved."

Sounds to me like we want both...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/