linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: Allow the user not to build hw

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:26:56 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: Allow the user not to build hw_breakpoints


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> On 07/14/2011 08:03 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So that hw_breakpoints and perf can be not built on
> > specific embedded systems.
> 
> I want to emphasize I am very, very unhappy about this.  It should 
> be possible to not build perf while still have breakpoints 
> available... breakpoints are way more important than perf.

What we could indeed do is to separate out a 'core perf' portion that 
is necessary for hw-breakpoints to work fine, thus allowing for 
example the PMU drivers to be disabled.

Otherwise we have expressed hw breakpoint APIs via perf events and 
that model is working well. Making hw-breakpoints a separate 
subsystem again with isolated (and partly duplicated) infrastructure 
would be a step back really.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/