[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrX0diWmgUTuJFCaMO41f_BW8X+ZGx-jpiFdXcd9haY+_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:56:19 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21] x86: Proposed fixes for stackvalidate warnings
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> These patches fix many of the warnings reported by stackvalidate.
> They're based on top of the "Compile-time stack validation" v7 patch set
> [1].
>
> They've been compile-tested and boot tested in a VM, but I haven't
> attempted any meaningful testing for most of them. This should give an
> idea of what kinds of changes I think are needed.
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1436893563.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com
>
Nothing here looks all that bad, but I think the extra frame pointers
staring us in the face (as opposed to the ones that gcc adds
transparently) might serve as added incentive to suck it up and get
CFI unwinding working.
--Andy
--
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