linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] objtool: Handle unsorted table offset of rodata

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: <20241128001011.sjedpn2zhrhy6y6i@jpoimboe>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 16:10:11 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] objtool: Handle unsorted table offset of rodata

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 03:01:33PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/27/2024 09:20 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 09:28:19PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> > > > +		/* Handle the special cases compiled with Clang on LoongArch */
> > > > +		if (file->elf->ehdr.e_machine == EM_LOONGARCH &&
> > > > +		    reloc->sym->type == STT_SECTION && reloc != table &&
> > > > +		    reloc_offset(reloc) == reloc_offset(table) + rodata_table_size)
> > > > +			break;
> > > 
> > > I think it can be generic, like this:
> > > 
> > >                 /* Check for the end of the table: */
> > >                 if (reloc != table && reloc == next_table)
> > >                         break;
> > > 
> > >                 if (reloc != table &&
> > >                     reloc_offset(reloc) == reloc_offset(table) +
> > > rodata_table_size)
> > >                         break;
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > I'm not sure, this patch is hard to review because it uses
> > insn->table_size which doesn't get set until the next patch.
> > 
> > Maybe this patch should come after patches 7 & 8, or maybe they should
> > be squashed?
> 
> OK, I will squash the changes into patch #7.

I remembered Ard already solved a similar problem when he prototyped x86
jump table annotation.  Can you pull this patch into your series:

https://lore.kernel.org/20241011170847.334429-12-ardb+git@google.com

-- 
Josh