linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.13 for 2.6.17

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]

Message-ID: <4519781D.9040503@goop.org>
Date:	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:57:33 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
CC:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	prasanna@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
	Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.13 for 2.6.17

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ok, so as far as I can see, we can only control the execution flow by modifying
> values in the output list of the asm.
>
> Do you think the following would work ?
>
>
> #define MARK_JUMP(name, format, args...) \
>         do { \
>                 char condition; \
>                 asm volatile(   ".section .markers, \"a\";\n\t" \
>                                         ".long 0f;\n\t" \
>                                         ".previous;\n\t" \
>                                         "0:\n\t" \
>                                         "movb $0,%1;\n\t" \
>                                 : "+m" (__marker_sequencer), \
>                                 "=r" (condition) : ); \
>                 if(unlikely(condition)) { \
>                         MARK_CALL(name, format, ## args); \
>                 } \
>         } while(0)
>   

Yep, that looks reasonable.  Though you could just directly test a 
per-marker enable flag, rather than using "condition"...

    J
-
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/