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]

Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:38:54 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, alyssa.milburn@...el.com,
        andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
        joao@...rdrivepizza.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, mbenes@...e.cz,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        ndesaulniers@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        samitolvanen@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/39] x86/ibt,kprobes: Fix more +0 assumptions

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 09:29:04PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > How does this look?
> 
> I gave this a quick test on powerpc and this looks good to me.

Thanks!

> > --- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
> > @@ -265,7 +265,6 @@ extern int arch_init_kprobes(void);
> >  extern void kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(struct kprobe *p);
> >  extern bool arch_within_kprobe_blacklist(unsigned long addr);
> >  extern int arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist(void);
> > -extern bool arch_kprobe_on_func_entry(unsigned long offset);
> 
> There is a __weak definition of this function in kernel/kprobes.c which
> should also be removed.

*poof*, gone.