linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF generated code

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: <20190614231717.xukbfpc2cy47s4xh@treble>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:17:17 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] objtool: Fix ORC unwinding in non-JIT BPF
 generated code

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:22:59PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +#define JUMP_TABLE_SYM_PREFIX "jump_table."
> > > > >
> > > > > since external tool will be looking at it should it be named
> > > > > "bpf_jump_table." to avoid potential name conflicts?
> > > > > Or even more unique name?
> > > > > Like "bpf_interpreter_jump_table." ?
> > > >
> > > > No, the point is that it's a generic feature which can also be used any
> > > > non-BPF code which might also have a jump table.
> > >
> > > and you're proposing to name all such jump tables in the kernel
> > > as static foo jump_table[] ?
> >
> > That's the idea.
> 
> Then it needs much wider discussion.

Why would it need wider discussion?  It only has one user.  If you
honestly believe that it will be controversial to require future users
to call a static jump table "jump_table" then we can have that
discussion when it comes up.

-- 
Josh