linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel

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

Message-ID: <CAHPT9mZMAgZKbjryofQQyObkc=rJkS8A6QZi36KS22roo_8Ovg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 18 Jul 2015 18:02:17 -0300
From:	Gustavo da Silva <gustavodasilva@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/21] x86/asm/crypto: Fix frame pointer usage in aesni-intel_asm.S

Hi, brothers.

I was reading the e-mails about the topic, and I have a simple suggestion:

FRAMED_FUNCTION_ENTRYPOINT(xyz)
...
FRAMED_FUNCTION_RETPOINT(xyz)

--
Atenciosamente,

Gustavo da Silva.
(Brazil)

> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 04:25:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 08:46:55AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > I like the balance, but the "ret" is still non-obvious.
> >
> > Does it have to be obvious?
>
> I feel that making "ret" obvious is better.
>
> But if somebody messes up and adds a second "ret", I suppose
> stackvalidate would warn about the fact that it returned without
> restoring the frame pointer.  So if there are no other objections, your
> suggestion of ENTRY_FRAME and ENDPROC_FRAME is fine with me.
--
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/