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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 18:54:17 -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 4/5] x86/bpf: Fix 64-bit JIT frame pointer usage On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:23:41PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:13 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:27:30PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > > Have you tested it ? > > > > > I really doubt, since in my test both CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC and > > > > > CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER failed to unwind through such odd frame. > > > > > > > > Hm, are you seeing selftest failures? They seem to work for me. > > > > > > > > > Here is much simple patch that I mentioned in the email yesterday, > > > > > but you failed to listen instead of focusing on perceived 'code readability'. > > > > > > > > > > It makes one proper frame and both frame and orc unwinders are happy. > > > > > > > > I'm on my way out the door and I just skimmed it, but it looks fine. > > > > > > > > Some of the code and patch description look familiar, please be sure to > > > > give me proper credit. > > > > > > credit means something positive. > > > > So you only give credit for *good* stolen code. I must have missed that > > section of the kernel patch guidelines. > > what are you talking about? > you've posted one bad patch. I pointed out multiple issues in it. > Then proposed another bad idea. I pointed out another set of issues. > Than David proposed yet another idea that you've implemented > and claimed that it's working when it was not. > Then I got fed up with this thread and fix it for real by reverting > that old commit that I mentioned way earlier. > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1116307/ > Where do you see your code or ideas being used? > I see none. Obviously I wasn't referring to this new whitewashed patch for which I wasn't even on Cc, despite being one of the people (along with Peter Z) who convinced you that there was a problem to begin with. The previous patch you posted has my patch description, push/pop and comment changes, with no credit: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190614210555.q4ictql3tzzjio4r@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com -- Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists