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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Yh9GGY0tT/Wwkg8d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:25:29 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> Cc: x86@...nel.org, joao@...rdrivepizza.com, hjl.tools@...il.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com, mark.rutland@....com, alyssa.milburn@...el.com, mbenes@...e.cz, rostedt@...dmis.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/39] x86/ibt,kprobes: Fix more +0 assumptions On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 09:11:50AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > But if you really want/need to retain that, then yes, we need that > > else branch unconditionally :/ > > Thank you, That's what I ended up doing in the latest version; I realized that irrespective of symbol size, it is required when symbols overlap, as per the case mentioned by Naveen. https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220301200547.GK11184@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net
Powered by blists - more mailing lists