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

* Josh Poimboeuf [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Ingo,

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:14:06AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

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+?=@zytor.com.

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.

quoted

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