linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86, stackvalidate: Add asm frame pointer setup macros

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150504211443.GC12638@treble.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 May 2015 16:14:43 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86, stackvalidate: Add asm frame pointer setup
 macros

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 01:33:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 01:23 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > +	__ASM_SIZE(push, _cfi) %_ASM_BP
> > +	__ASM_SIZE(pop, _cfi) %_ASM_BP
> 
> This seems ridiculous.  push/pop only come in one size per
> architecture(*).  Can we make it so that just push_cfi and pop_cfi do
> the right things?

Yeah, the separated pushq_cfi and pushl_cfi macros aren't really
necessary.  I'm guessing they were made separate in order to have a
consistent naming interface with movq_cfi and movl_cfi.

I'm not sure about which way is better.  But I can replace them with new
push_cfi and pop_cfi macros if you like.

-- 
Josh
--
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/