linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 03/14] arm: kprobes: Use generic kretprobe trampoline handler

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: <20200826140852.GG1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:08:52 +0200
From:   peterz@...radead.org
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Eddy Wu <Eddy_Wu@...ndmicro.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/14] arm: kprobes: Use generic kretprobe trampoline
 handler

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:46:43PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>  static __used __kprobes void *trampoline_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
> +	return (void *)kretprobe_trampoline_handler(regs,
> +				(unsigned long)&kretprobe_trampoline,
> +				regs->ARM_fp);
>  }

Does it make sense to have the generic code have a weak
trampoline_handler() implemented like the above? It looks like a number
of architectures have this trivial variant and it seems pointless to
duplicate this.