linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list

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: <3bca2228-0a1a-c898-bbab-bb4925fddd8d@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:07:20 -0500
From:   "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        ardb@...nel.org, nobuta.keiya@...itsu.com,
        sjitindarsingh@...il.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 v6 3/3] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions,
 check return PC against list



On 7/29/21 9:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:06:26AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 7/28/21 12:25 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 05:33:56PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> 
>>> Since some of the above is speculative (e.g. the bit about optprobes),
>>> and as code will change over time, I think we should have a much terser
>>> comment, e.g.
> 
>>> 	/*
>>> 	 * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling
>>> 	 * conventions, we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function
>>> 	 * cannot be unwound reliably.
>>> 	 *
>>> 	 * Note that this includes exception entry/return sequences and
>>> 	 * trampoline for ftrace and kprobes.
>>> 	 */
> 
>> Just to confirm, are you suggesting that I remove the entire large comment
>> detailing the various cases and replace the whole thing with the terse comment?
>> I did the large comment because of Mark Brown's input that we must be verbose
>> about all the cases so that it is clear in the future what the different
>> cases are and how we handle them in this code. As the code evolves, the comments
>> would evolve.
> 
> I do agree with Mark that this has probably gone from one extreme to the
> other and could be cut back a lot - originally it didn't reference there
> being complicated cases like the trampoline at all IIRC so you needed
> external knowledge to figure out that those cases were handled.
> 

OK.

Madhavan