linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 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:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:03:31 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org,
        nobuta.keiya@...itsu.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        jmorris@...ei.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability
 checks in the unwinder

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:40:21PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

> regular unwinds (e.g. so that we can have a backtrace idicate when a
> step is not reliable, like x86 does with '?'), and to do that we need to
> be a little more accurate.

There was the idea that was discussed a bit when I was more actively
working on this of just refactoring our unwinder infrastructure to be a
lot more like the x86 and (IIRC) S/390 in form.  Part of the thing there
was that it'd mean that even where we're not able to actually share code
we'd have more of a common baseline for how things work and what works.
It'd make review, especially cross architecture review, of what's going
on a bit easier too - see some of the concerns Josh had about the
differences here for example.  It'd be a relatively big bit of
refactoring though.

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