All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
To: <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>, <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	<broonie@kernel.org>, <nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com>,
	<sjitindarsingh@gmail.com>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<will@kernel.org>, <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<live-patching@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 22:24:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <061a4299-114f-96e0-86a4-6ab255778498@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220524001637.1707472-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

Hi Madvenka,

I have a brief look at your patch and the idea that using CFA metadata to
validate FP is reasonable to me. And I found a problem when I used 'pv dump' to
check the orc value and I replied your commit 11/20 for that.

I think it's not necessary that you rewrite the arm64 decoder(there is already a
decoder in my patch) and insn check(objtool check can just make it) by yourself.
Especially it is too duplicated to have two check in objtool.

For me it's also a trouble that objtool runs too much unnecessary work. I advise
that we should move some check for x86 as arch specific and refactor the cmdline
options, they doesn't turn off everything perfectly now.

Other than that I have an advise: We only use orc for reliable stacktrace and
normal FP unwind doesn't depends on it. Should we only load these data for
livepatch (or other scenario needs reliable stacktrace)? It can save the memory
and time consuming for kernel.

That's all. And if you don't mind, can I incorporate some commit into my set?
Appreciate for it.

Best,
Chen


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
To: <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>, <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	<broonie@kernel.org>, <nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com>,
	<sjitindarsingh@gmail.com>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<will@kernel.org>, <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>,
	 <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<live-patching@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 22:24:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <061a4299-114f-96e0-86a4-6ab255778498@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220524001637.1707472-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

Hi Madvenka,

I have a brief look at your patch and the idea that using CFA metadata to
validate FP is reasonable to me. And I found a problem when I used 'pv dump' to
check the orc value and I replied your commit 11/20 for that.

I think it's not necessary that you rewrite the arm64 decoder(there is already a
decoder in my patch) and insn check(objtool check can just make it) by yourself.
Especially it is too duplicated to have two check in objtool.

For me it's also a trouble that objtool runs too much unnecessary work. I advise
that we should move some check for x86 as arch specific and refactor the cmdline
options, they doesn't turn off everything perfectly now.

Other than that I have an advise: We only use orc for reliable stacktrace and
normal FP unwind doesn't depends on it. Should we only load these data for
livepatch (or other scenario needs reliable stacktrace)? It can save the memory
and time consuming for kernel.

That's all. And if you don't mind, can I incorporate some commit into my set?
Appreciate for it.

Best,
Chen


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-24 14:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <e81e773678f88f7c2ff7480e2eb096973ec198db>
2022-05-24  0:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/20] objtool: Reorganize CFI code madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/20] objtool: Reorganize instruction-related code madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/20] objtool: Move decode_instructions() to a separate file madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/20] objtool: Reorganize Unwind hint code madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/20] objtool: Reorganize ORC types madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24 14:27     ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-05-24 14:27       ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-05-29 15:36       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-29 15:36         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/20] objtool: Reorganize ORC code madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/20] objtool: Reorganize ORC kernel code madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/20] objtool: arm64: Implement decoder for FP validation madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/20] objtool: arm64: Implement command to invoke the decoder madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24 14:09     ` Mark Brown
2022-05-24 14:09       ` Mark Brown
2022-05-29 14:49       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-29 14:49         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-30  7:51         ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-30  7:51           ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-06-01 22:45           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-01 22:45             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-07 18:13             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-07 18:13               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/20] objtool: arm64: Compute destinations for call and jump instructions madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/20] objtool: arm64: Walk instructions and compute CFI for each instruction madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24 13:45     ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-05-24 13:45       ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-05-29 15:18       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-29 15:18         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-30  1:44         ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-05-30  1:44           ` Chen Zhongjin
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/20] objtool: arm64: Generate ORC data from CFI for object files madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/20] objtool: arm64: Dump ORC data present in " madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/20] objtool: arm64: Add unwind hint support madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/20] arm64: Add unwind hints to specific points in code madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/20] arm64: Add kernel and module support for ORC madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/20] arm64: Build the kernel with ORC information madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 18/20] arm64: unwinder: Add a reliability check in the unwinder based on ORC madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 19/20] arm64: Miscellaneous changes required for enabling livepatch madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-07-01 14:16     ` Miroslav Benes
2022-07-01 14:16       ` Miroslav Benes
2022-07-01 19:53       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-07-01 19:53         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-24  0:16   ` [RFC PATCH v2 20/20] arm64: Enable livepatch for ARM64 madvenka
2022-05-24  0:16     ` madvenka
2022-05-24 14:24   ` Chen Zhongjin [this message]
2022-05-24 14:24     ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: livepatch: Use ORC for dynamic frame pointer validation Chen Zhongjin
2022-05-29 15:30     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-05-29 15:30       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-15 12:18   ` Ivan T. Ivanov
2022-06-15 12:18     ` Ivan T. Ivanov
2022-06-15 13:37     ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-15 13:37       ` Mark Rutland
2022-06-15 14:18       ` Ivan T. Ivanov
2022-06-15 14:18         ` Ivan T. Ivanov
2022-06-15 20:50       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-15 20:50         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-15 20:47     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-06-15 20:47       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=061a4299-114f-96e0-86a4-6ab255778498@huawei.com \
    --to=chenzhongjin@huawei.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.