linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch in arm64

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190805095918.3942c45b@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:59:18 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Jiping Ma <jiping.ma2@...driver.com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, takahiro.akashi@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Function stack size and its name mismatch
 in arm64

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:25:25 +0100
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:

> So, I completely agree with Steve that we shouldn't be littering the core code
> with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64, but we probably do need something in the arch backend
> if we're going to do this properly, and that in turn is likely to need a very
> different algorithm from the one currently in use.

And I'm perfectly fine if someone wants to tear up the current
implementation, and make one that has callbacks to arch code (with
defaults for those that don't need it).

But it has to be clean. We worked hard to get rid of most "#ifdef"
being scattered in the kernel, and I'm not bringing it back in my code.

-- Steve