From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support for arm64
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:43:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210122174342.GG6391@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210121185452.fxoz4ehqfv75bdzq@treble>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 548 bytes --]
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:54:52PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 2) The shadow stack idea sounds promising -- how hard would it be to
> make a prototype reliable unwinder?
In theory it doesn't look too hard and I can't see a particular reason
not to try doing this - there's going to be edge cases but hopefully for
reliable stack trace they're all in areas where we would be happy to
just decide the stack isn't reliable anyway, things like nesting which
allocates separate shadow stacks for each nested level for example.
I'll take a look.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-22 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20210120173800.1660730-1-jthierry@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <CAMj1kXHO0wgcZ4ZDxj1vS9s7Szfpz8Nz=SAW_=Dnnjy+S9AtyQ@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <186bb660-6e70-6bbf-4e96-1894799c79ce@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <CAMj1kXHznGnN2UEai1c2UgyKuTFCS5SZ+qGR6VJwyCuccViw_A@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <YAlkOFwkb6/hFm1Q@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
[not found] ` <CAMj1kXE+675mbS66kteKHNfcrco84WTaEL6ncVkkV7tQgbMpFw@mail.gmail.com>
2021-01-21 18:54 ` [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support for arm64 Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-22 17:43 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-01-22 17:54 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-28 22:10 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-22 21:15 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-22 21:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-22 21:44 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-25 21:19 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-22 21:16 ` 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=20210122174342.GG6391@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).