linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder

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]

Date:   Fri, 21 May 2021 18:53:18 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     mark.rutland@....com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org,
        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 v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability
 checks in the unwinder

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Like I say we may come up with some use for the flag in error cases in
> > future so I'm not opposed to keeping the accounting there.

> So, should I leave it the way it is now? Or should I not set reliable = false
> for errors? Which one do you prefer?

> Josh,

> Are you OK with not flagging reliable = false for errors in unwind_frame()?

I think it's fine to leave it as it is.

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