linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/ibt: make is

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2384581.ElGaqSPkdT@7940hx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 15:21:58 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@...ux.dev>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ibt: make is_endbr() notrace

On 2025/9/22 15:19 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> write:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 03:13:38PM +0800, menglong.dong@...ux.dev wrote:
> 
> > > Anyway, I don't mind making is_endbr() invisible to tracing, that might
> > > just have security benefits too. But I think first the ftrace folks need
> > > to figure out how to best kill that recursion, because I don't think
> > > is_endbr is particularly special here.
> > 
> > So, does this patch seem useful after all?
> 
> The use lies in making it harder to find/manipulate endbr things.
> 
> > OK, I'll send a V2 base on your following suggestion.
> 
> Hold off until Masami/Steve have fixed the ftrace recursion issue. After
> that we can do this.

OK!

> 
>