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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7f9366bd-1973-bc07-5314-45792f256dc1@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 16:44:44 -0500
From:   "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 5/21/21 12:53 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.
> 

OK. I will address the comments so far and send out v5.

Thanks.

Madhavan