| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200608071536.40303.ak@suse.de> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:36:40 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> To: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com> Cc: anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: notify_page_fault_chain On Monday 07 August 2006 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote: > I just noticed this addition to i386 and x86-64, conditionalized upon CONFIG_KPROBES. May I ask what the motivation for > this compatibility breaking change is? It's normally policy to only care about in tree code regarding exports and hooks. But also no policy without exceptions. > Only performance? Christopher L. complained about it taking too long on IA64 I think (but that might have been some IA64 specific quirk) I think I proposed to use a inline check of the chain and only then call the external function, but that might not have been implemented that way. > I consider it already questionable to split out a specific > fault from the general die notification (previous users of the functionality all of the sudden won't get notifications > for one of the most crucial faults anymore), but entirely hiding the functionality (unavailable without CONFIG_KPROBES, > and even with it not getting exported) is really odd. You want to use it for your debugger? -Andi - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists