[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202205091610.4375DD0A@keescook>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 16:12:04 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the char-misc tree
On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 06:53:44PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 73f62e60d80c ("lkdtm: Move crashtype definitions into each category")
>
> from the char-misc tree and commits:
>
> c393c0b98d75 ("lkdtm/stackleak: prevent unexpected stack usage")
> 932c12ae7963 ("lkdtm/stackleak: fix CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK=n")
>
> from the kspp tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c
> index 210c84dfe1d2,82369c6f889e..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm/stackleak.c
> @@@ -81,11 -115,21 +115,29 @@@ out
> }
> }
>
> -void lkdtm_STACKLEAK_ERASING(void)
> ++static void lkdtm_STACKLEAK_ERASING(void)
> + {
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + check_stackleak_irqoff();
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + }
> + #else /* defined(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK) */
> -void lkdtm_STACKLEAK_ERASING(void)
> ++static void lkdtm_STACKLEAK_ERASING(void)
> + {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_STACKLEAK)) {
> + pr_err("XFAIL: stackleak is not enabled (CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK=n)\n");
> + } else {
> + pr_err("XFAIL: stackleak is not supported on this arch (HAVE_ARCH_STACKLEAK=n)\n");
> + }
> + }
> + #endif /* defined(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STACKLEAK) */
> +static struct crashtype crashtypes[] = {
> + CRASHTYPE(STACKLEAK_ERASING),
> +};
> +
> +struct crashtype_category stackleak_crashtypes = {
> + .crashtypes = crashtypes,
> + .len = ARRAY_SIZE(crashtypes),
> +};
Thanks! Yes, this looks correct. The "tricky" bit here is making sure
both lkdtm_STACKLEAK_ERASING instances are static, which you did. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists