linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] kprobes: Remove MODULES dependency

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:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:56:14 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kprobes: Remove MODULES dependency

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 08:51:56AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:32:57PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 02:45:19 +0300
> > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> > >  	/* Lock modules while optimizing kprobes */
> > >  	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > Hmm, can you reduce these "#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE"s ?
> > 
> > e.g. 
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> > static void lock_modules(void)
> > {
> > 	mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
> > }
> > ...
> > #else
> > #define lock_modules() do { } while (0)
> > ...
> > #endif
> 
> I prefer using "static inline" for no-op functions just because they
> will maintain argument type validation by the compiler regardless of the
> CONFIG state (though it doesn't really matter here since it's void).
> 
> #else
> static inline lock_modules(void) { }
> #endif
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook

Thanks Kees, good remark.

/Jarkko