Re: [PATCH 00/33] Compile-time stack metadata validation

[Ingo Molnar]

* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:14:06AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > So I tried out this latest stacktool series and it looks mostly good for an 
> > upstream merge.
> > 
> > To help this effort move forward I've applied the preparatory/fix patches that are 
> > part of this series to tip:x86/debug - that's 26 out of 31 patches. (I've 
> > propagated all the acks that the latest submission got into the changelogs.)
> 
> Thanks very much for your review and for applying the fixes!
> 
> A few issues relating to the merge:
> 
> - The tip:x86/debug branch fails to build because it depends on
>   ec5186557abb ("x86/asm: Add C versions of frame pointer macros") which
>   is in tip:x86/asm.

Indeed...

> - As Pavel mentioned, the tip-bot seems to be spitting out garbage
>   emails from:
>   =?UTF-8?B?dGlwLWJvdCBmb3IgSm9zaCBQb2ltYm9ldWYgPHRpcGJvdEB6eXRvci5jb20+?=@xxxxxxxxxx

Yeah, hpa fixed that meanwhile.

Due to the above bad base I rebased the tree (to a x86/asm base), so there will be 
a new round of (hopefully readable) tip-bot notifications. I'll push it out after 
a bit of testing.

> > 5)
> > 
> > Likewise, I think the CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y Kconfig flag does not express that 
> > we do exception table checks as well - and it does not express all the other 
> > things we may check in object files in the future.
> > 
> > Something like CONFIG_CHECK_OBJECT_FILES=y would express it, and the help text 
> > would list all the things the tool is able to checks for at the moment.
> 
> Hm, I'm not really sure about this.  Yes, the tool could potentially do
> other types of checks, but is it necessary to lump them all together
> into a single config option?  It does have subcommands after all ;-)

lol ;-)

Ok, I'm fine with CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo