linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] objtool: orc_gen: Move orc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3b79ffe8-dd5f-7356-ff1d-dc679ce304f7@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:39:59 +0100
From:   Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, mhelsley@...are.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] objtool: orc_gen: Move orc_entry out of instruction
 structure

Hi,

On 6/5/20 10:17 AM, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> a nit below...
> 
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020, Julien Thierry wrote:
> 
>> One orc_entry is associated with each instruction in the object file,
>> but having the orc_entry contained by the instruction structure forces
>> architectures not implementing the orc subcommands to provide a dummy
>> definition of the orc_entry.
>>
>> Avoid that by having orc_entries in a separate list, part of the
>> objtool_file.
> 
>>   int create_orc(struct objtool_file *file)
>>   {
>>   	struct instruction *insn;
>>   
>>   	for_each_insn(file, insn) {
>> -		struct orc_entry *orc = &insn->orc;
>>   		struct cfi_reg *cfa = &insn->cfi.cfa;
>>   		struct cfi_reg *bp = &insn->cfi.regs[CFI_BP];
>> +		struct orc_entry *orc;
>> +		struct orc_data *od;
>> +
>> +		if (!insn->sec->text)
>> +			continue;
> 
> You have the same check added by the previous check a couple of lines
> below.
> 
>> +		od = calloc(1, sizeof(*od));
>> +		if (!od)
>> +			return -1;
>> +		od->insn = insn;
>> +		list_add_tail(&od->list, &file->orc_data_list);
>> +
>> +		orc = &od->orc;
>>   
>>   		if (!insn->sec->text)
>>   			continue;
> 
> Here.
> 
> The rest looks good to me, but I should probably check again with a
> clearer head.
> 

Ah, I must have messed up the patch splitting/rebasing somewhere. Thanks 
for pointing it out, this patch shouldn't add the check (but od 
allocation should happen after the existing check). I'll fix that.

> Overall, the patch set is a nice improvement.
> 

Thanks!

-- 
Julien Thierry