From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756643AbcAMKSP (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 05:18:15 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:33487 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756278AbcAMKSG (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2016 05:18:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:18:01 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Josh Poimboeuf , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek , Peter Zijlstra , Andy Lutomirski , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Pedro Alves , Namhyung Kim , Bernd Petrovitsch , Chris J Arges , Andrew Morton , Jiri Slaby , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , David Vrabel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Boris Ostrovsky , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Chris Wright , Alok Kataria , Rusty Russell , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , Mathias Krause , Pavel Machek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Matt Fleming Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/25] Compile-time stack metadata validation Message-ID: <20160113101801.GA9539@gmail.com> References: <20160112171713.GF22699@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160112171713.GF22699@pd.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:39:14AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > This is v15 of the compile-time stack metadata validation patch set, > > along with proposed fixes for many of the warnings it found. It's based > > on the tip/master branch. > > Ok, > > Reviewed-by: Borislav Petkov > > With it applied, my .config gives ~1000 stacktool warnings. That's way too high! We should really strive for zero warnings on common configs - otherwise we'll just drown in the noise of warnings, and people won't notice (and won't care about) new warnings. With a zero warnings baseline on a reasonable default kernel config people can test for new warnings. > One of the issues that bugs me recently is adding tool-specific markers > to unrelated code and new tools tend to love doing that. But this makes > unrelated code ugly and people touching it shouldn't have to know about > those tools. > > I guess you could improve the analysis of vmlinux as stacktool is > running post-compile and thus put the onus on the tool to do the right > thing and not on the code. > > But that's for the TODO. So if we still have 1,000 warnings, then it's more than a TODO - it's more like a MUSTFIX! :-) Thanks, Ingo