linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/19] x86/dumpstack: fix function graph tracing stack dump reliability issues

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: <20160803033125.uxyrs3aaic2w5pvq@treble>
Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:31:25 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/19] x86/dumpstack: fix function graph tracing stack
 dump reliability issues

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:21:04PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:18:57 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:12:33 -0500
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Sounds good.  I was thinking I could also add a similar define to
> > > indicate whether an arch passes the return address stack pointer to
> > > ftrace_push_return_trace().  HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_RET_ADDR_PTR?
> > >   
> > 
> > If you are making this function global, might as well make all pass
> > that pointer when you do the conversion. I don't think we need a define
> > to differentiate it.
> > 
> 
> Bah, I was thinking of your ftrace_graph_ret_addr() function. /me needs
> to go to bed.
> 
> Anyway, if we have to add a parameter, we probably need to update all
> the callers anyway. We do need to add a parameter for this, right?

Yeah, we do need to add a parameter to ftrace_push_return_trace().  But
callers which don't implement it could just pass zero like they do with
'fp'.

-- 
Josh