linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] stacktrace: Remove reliable argument from arch_stack

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: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2007171103070.21694@pobox.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:04:52 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] stacktrace: Remove reliable argument from
 arch_stack_walk() callback

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Mark Brown wrote:

> Currently the callback passed to arch_stack_walk() has an argument called
> reliable passed to it to indicate if the stack entry is reliable, a comment
> says that this is used by some printk() consumers. However in the current
> kernel none of the arch_stack_walk() implementations ever set this flag to
> true and the only callback implementation we have is in the generic
> stacktrace code which ignores the flag. It therefore appears that this
> flag is redundant so we can simplify and clarify things by removing it.

Correct. I dug around and it seems it was the case even when it was 
introduced. So I wonder about the comment. I don't remember the details, 
maybe Thomas or someone else does. But the patch looks correct.

Miroslav