linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 06/11] arm64: Use stack_trace_consume

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: <416e0757-46fe-b290-cb8b-cd766f9cbdb6@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 09:34:58 -0600
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, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 06/11] arm64: Use stack_trace_consume_fn and rename
 args to unwind()



On 3/9/22 05:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:00:35PM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> 
>> It is just that patch 11 that defines "select
>> HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE" did not receive any comments from you
>> (unless I missed a comment that came from you. That is entirely
>> possible. If I missed it, my bad). Since you suggested that change, I
>> just wanted to make sure that that patch looks OK to you.
> 
> I think that's more a question for the livepatch people to be honest -
> it's not entirely a technical one, there's a bunch of confidence level
> stuff going on.  For example there was some suggestion that people might
> insist on having objtool support, though there's also substantial
> pushback on making objtool a requirement for anything from other
> quarters.  I was hoping that posting that patch would provoke some
> discussion about what exactly is needed but that's not happened thus
> far.

Understood. In that case, I will remove that patch because it is not really required for my current work on the unwinder. I will bring this up later in a different patch series where it will trigger a discussion.

Thanks.

Madhavan