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  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:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:09:44 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > 
> > >  arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > 
> > Second thoughts. So this adds 28 /* fall through */ comments. Now I
> > appreciate the effort, but can we pretty please look at the code in
> > question and figure out whether the implementation makes sense in the first
> > place before adding falltrough comments blindly?
> > 
> > The whole exercise can be simplified. Untested patch below.
> > 
> > Looking at that stuff makes me wonder about two things:
> > 
> >  1) The third argument of get/set(), i.e. the argument offset, is 0 on all
> >     call sites. Do we need it at all?
> 
> Probably "maxargs" can be removed too, Steven sent the patches a long ago, see
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20161107212634.529267342@goodmis.org/

Indeed. We should resurrect them.

> >  2) syscall_set_arguments() has been introduced in 2008 and we still have
> >     no caller. Instead of polishing it, can it be removed completely or are
> >     there plans to actually use it?
> 
> I think it can die.

Good. Removed code is the least buggy code :)

Gustavo, it would be really appreciated if you could take care of that,
unless Steven wants to polish his old set up himself. If you have no
cycles, please let us know.

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists