linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] objtool: vmlinux.o and noinstr validation

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: <87h7yncox2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 10:26:49 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] objtool: vmlinux.o and noinstr validation

Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> writes:
> BTW, out of curiously, if BUG*() or WARN*() cases happens in the noinstr
> section, do we also need to move them (register dump, stack unwinding,
> printk, console output, etc.) all into noinstr section?

The current plan is to declare BUG()/WARN() "safe". On x86 it is kinda
safe as it uses UD2. That raises an exception which handles the bug/warn
after establishing the correct state.

Of course it's debatable, but moving all of this into the noinstr
section might be just a too wide scope.

Thanks,

        tglx