linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 4/9] x86/dumpstack: Improve opcodes dumping in the Code: section

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: <107ab804c8f44a9fba4cb52a60ee1f0d@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:57:15 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Borislav Petkov' <bp@...en8.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
CC:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/9] x86/dumpstack: Improve opcodes dumping in the Code:
 section

From: Borislav Petkov
> Sent: 15 March 2018 18:16
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 01:10:54PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > I liked OPCODE_BUFSIZE where it was before :-)  Here it disrupts the
> > readability of the function a bit IMO.
> 
> My thinking is have it close by so that you don't have to go search for
> its definition.
> 
> But I don't have a strong opinion on where it should be so...

Is OPCODE_BUFSIZE even needed?
Maybe replace with 64 and use sizeof() and/or ARRAY_SIZE() elsewhere.
Then no one has to check that the bound is appropriate for the array.

	David