linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210409113101.GA4499@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 12:31:01 +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 v2 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the
 stack trace unreliable

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:23:39PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 4/8/21 11:58 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This looks good to me however I'd really like someone who has a firmer
> > understanding of what ftrace is doing to double check as it is entirely
> > likely that I am missing cases here, it seems likely that if I am
> > missing stuff it's extra stuff that needs to be added and we're not
> > actually making use of the reliability information yet.

> OK. So, do you have some specific reviewer(s) in mind? Apart from yourself, Mark Rutland and
> Josh Poimboeuf, these are some reviewers I can think of (in alphabetical order):

Mainly Mark Rutland, but generally someone else who has looked at ftrace
on arm64 in detail.  It was mainly a comment to say I wasn't going to do
any kind of Reviewed-by but also hadn't spotted any issues.

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