linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] arm64: ftrace with regs

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: <20190311121804.GB23361@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:18:05 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] arm64: ftrace with regs

Hi Torsten,

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:49:46PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:11:04AM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
> > Hi Torsten,
> > 
> > On 08/02/2019 15:08, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > > Patch series v8, as discussed.
> > > The whole series applies cleanly on 5.0-rc5
> 
> So what's the status now? Besides debatable minor style
> issues there were no more objections to v8. Would this
> go through the ARM repo or via the ftrace repo?

Sorry, I have some half-written review comments that I will clean up and
send shortly.

As commented on prior versions, I'd very much like to see the
MCOUNT_ADDR hack go, by teaching the core ftrace code to not assume that
an mcount symbol exists.

We should be able to do that by separating the notion of NOPing a patch
site from the notion of initializing it for the first time.

Thanks,
Mark.