linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] arm64: Handle miscellaneous functions in .text and .init.text

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: <0ef047c5-d3fe-619e-749d-b10ef3571bcd@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 10:57:09 -0500
From:   "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     jpoimboe@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com, jthierry@...hat.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] arm64: Handle miscellaneous functions in .text
 and .init.text



On 5/6/21 10:37 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:30:21AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 5/6/21 9:12 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 12:36:14PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> 
>>> I was thinking it'd be good to do this by modifying SYM_CODE_START() to
>>> emit the section, that way nobody can forget to put any SYM_CODE into a
>>> special section.  That does mean we'd have to first introduce a new
> 
>> OK. I could make the section an argument to SYM_CODE*() so that a developer
>> will never miss that. Some documentation may be in order so the guidelines
>> are clear. I will do the doc patch separately, if that is alright with
>> you all.
> 
> I was thinking to have standard SYM_CODE default to a section then a
> variant for anything that cares (like how we have SYM_FUNC_PI and
> friends for the PI code for EFI).
> 

OK.

>>> We also have a bunch of things like __cpu_soft_restart which don't seem
>>> to be called out here but need to be in .idmap.text.
> 
>> It is already in .idmap.text.
> 
> Right, I meant that I was expecting to see things that need to be in a
> specific section other than .code.text called out separately here if
> we're enumerating them.  Though if the annotations are done separately
> then this patch wouldn't need to do that calling out at all, it'd be
> covered as part of fiddling around with the annotations.
> 

OK.

Madhavan