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: <CACT4Y+Y5Y54iWn3w2jifjecDb+dZa_B=qZBsKTH8immHktij2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:06:15 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcov: convert kcov.refcount to refcount_t

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:04 AM Reshetova, Elena
<elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:
>
>  > Just to check, has this been tested with CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL and
> > > something poking kcov?
> > >
> > > Given lib/refcount.c is instrumented, the refcount_*() calls will
> > > recurse back into the kcov code. It looks like that's fine, given these
> > > are only manipulated in setup/teardown paths, but it would be nice to be
> > > sure.
> >
> > A simple program using KCOV is available here:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.0-rc3/source/Documentation/dev-
> > tools/kcov.rst#L42
> > or here (it's like strace but collects and prints KCOV coverage):
> > https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/tools/kcovtrace/kcovtrace.c
> >
>
> Ok, so I finally got to compile kcov in and try the first test program
> and it works fine as far as I can see: runs, prints results, and no WARNs anywhere
> visible with regards to refcount_t.
>
> I did my test on 4.20 with CONFIG_REFCOUNT_FULL=y
> since I have serious issues getting 5.0 running as it is even from
> the stable branch, but unless kcov underwent some serious changes since December,
> it should not affect.

There were no changes that should affect this part.

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>


> Is it ok now for merging this change? The stricter mem ordering on dec_and_test
> hopefully will also lands soon.
>
> Best Regards,
> Elena.
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ