linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] error-injection: Simplify arch specific helpers

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]

Date:   Sat, 2 Jun 2018 08:12:01 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] error-injection: Simplify arch specific helpers

On Thu, 31 May 2018 15:39:03 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2018 18:06:02 +0530
> > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> We already have an arch-independent way to set the instruction pointer
> >> with instruction_pointer_set(). Using this allows us to get rid of the
> >> need for override_function_with_return() that each architecture has to
> >> implement.
> >> 
> >> Furthermore, just_return_func() only has to encode arch-specific
> >> assembly instructions to return from a function. Introduce a macro
> >> ARCH_FUNC_RET to provide the arch-specific instruction and move over
> >> just_return_func() to generic code.
> >> 
> >> With these changes, architectures that already support kprobes, only
> >> just need to ensure they provide regs_set_return_value(), GET_IP() (for
> >> instruction_pointer_set()), and ARCH_FUNC_RET to support error
> >> injection.
> > 
> > Nice! the code basically good to me. Just one comment, ARCH_FUNC_RET sounds
> > like a function. Maybe ARCH_RETURN_INSTRUCTION will be better name, isn't it? :)
> 
> Sure -- I thought of writing ARCH_FUNCTION_RETURN, but felt that was too 
> verbose. How about ARCH_FUNC_RET_INST?

It is OK if we can recognize it is an instruction.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>