linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] objtool: KCOV vs noinstr

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]

Date:   Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:54:15 -0700
From:   Matt Helsley <mhelsley@...are.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <dvyukov@...gle.com>, <elver@...gle.com>, <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        <jthierry@...hat.com>, <mbenes@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] objtool: KCOV vs noinstr

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:30:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> These patches go on top of objtool/core, although possibly we need them earlier.
> 
> In order to solve the KCOV-vs-noinstr situation, we need objtool to rewrite
> calls to __sanitizer_cov_*() into NOPs, similar to what recordmcount does.
> 
> I'm hoping the pending objtool-recordmcount patches can also reuse some of this.

This sounds great to me -- I'll have a look through your series and will try
rebasing my work on this.

Cheers,
    -Matt Helsley