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  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:   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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists