[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150714211149.GA13950@treble.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:11:49 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] x86/stackvalidate: Compile-time stack validation
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:14:08PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > This adds a CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION option which enables a host tool
> > named stackvalidate which runs at compile time. It analyzes every .o
> > file and ensures the validity of its stack metadata. It enforces a set
> > of rules on asm code and C inline assembly code so that stack traces can
> > be reliable.
> >
> > Currently it checks frame pointer usage. I plan to add DWARF CFI
> > validation as well.
>
> Validation or Annotation, as in the generation of DWARF CFI info?
My current thinking is I'll do both:
- CFI generation for asm code
- CFI validation of C code (and possibly asm code too)
It's TBD whether the generation will be done by this tool or by a
separate tool.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists