linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable

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: <20210406110257.GA6443@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:02:57 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     mark.rutland@....com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the
 stack trace unreliable

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:47:11PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 4/1/21 1:53 PM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

> > Alternatively, I could just move the SYM_INNER_LABEL(ftrace_graph_call..) to outside the ifdef.

> Or, even better, I could just use ftrace_call+4 because that would be the return
> address for the tracer function at ftrace_call:

> I think that would be cleaner. And, I don't need the complicated comments for ftrace_graph_call.

> Is this acceptable?

I think either of those should be fine.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)