linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/3] ARM: Implement MODULE

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: <761c79cf-8709-6da6-cdb7-9e03e25f0272@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 May 2021 12:11:01 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...ia.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/3] ARM: Implement MODULE_PLT support in FTRACE

On 4/19/21 3:34 PM, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 04/19/21 14:54, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/2021 4:08 AM, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>> Hi Alexander
>>>
>>> Fixing Ard's email as the Linaro one keeps bouncing back. Please fix that in
>>> your future postings.
>>>
>>> On 04/12/21 08:28, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> On 09/04/2021 17:33, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>>>> I still think the ifdefery in patch 3 is ugly. Any reason my suggestion didn't
>>>>> work out for you? I struggle to see how this is better and why it was hard to
>>>>> incorporate my suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example
>>>>>
>>>>> 	-       old = ftrace_call_replace(ip, adjust_address(rec, addr));
>>>>> 	+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_MODULE_PLTS
>>>>> 	+       /* mod is only supplied during module loading */
>>>>> 	+       if (!mod)
>>>>> 	+               mod = rec->arch.mod;
>>>>> 	+       else
>>>>> 	+               rec->arch.mod = mod;
>>>>> 	+#endif
>>>>> 	+
>>>>> 	+       old = ftrace_call_replace(ip, aaddr,
>>>>> 	+                                 !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_MODULE_PLTS) || !mod);
>>>>> 	+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_MODULE_PLTS
>>>>> 	+       if (!old && mod) {
>>>>> 	+               aaddr = get_module_plt(mod, ip, aaddr);
>>>>> 	+               old = ftrace_call_replace(ip, aaddr, true);
>>>>> 	+       }
>>>>> 	+#endif
>>>>> 	+
>>>>>
>>>>> There's an ifdef, followed by a code that embeds
>>>>> !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_MODULE_PLTS) followed by another ifdef :-/
>>>>
>>>> No, it's actually two small ifdefed blocks added before and after an original call,
>>>> which parameters have been modified as well. The issue with arch.mod was explained
>>>> by Steven Rostedt, maybe you've missed his email.
>>>
>>> If you're referring to arch.mod having to be protected by the ifdef I did
>>> address that. Please look at my patch.
>>>
>>> My comment here refers to the ugliness of this ifdefery. Introducing 2 simple
>>> wrapper functions would address that as I've demonstrated in my
>>> suggestion/patch.
>>
>> What is the plan to move forward with this patch series, should v8 be
>> submitted into RMK's patch tracker and improved upon from there, or do
>> you feel like your suggestion needs to be addressed right away?
> 
> There's no objection from my side to submitting this and improve later.

OK, thanks! Alexander, do you mind sending these patches to RMK's patch
tracker: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/?

Thank you!
-- 
Florian