linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 15/39] x86/ibt,kprobes: Fix more +0 assumptions

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: <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