[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgGZWXQj-J2xo0DY7150VrXOSqoD5Dj1_LGYaotqA6Z-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:54:14 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, valentin.schneider@....com,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/20] objtool: Add UACCESS validation
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:41 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > What's the call site that made you go "just add __memset() to the list"?
>
> __asan_{,un}poinson_stack_memory()
> kasan_{,un}poison_shadow()
> __memset()
Ugh. I think I almost just agree with your decision to just let that
memset go unchecked.
I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem to be a fight worth fighting.
Again, maybe we could avoid the static checking entirely for the
complex configs, and just make preempt_schedule() not do it for AC
regions.
Because AC vs KASAN in general ends up smelling like "not a fight
worth fighting" to me. You've done a herculean job, but..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists