| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:55:24 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] move die notifier handling to common code On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:32:09AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Seems OK, although I think kprobes should not be using notify_die. > The set of events that kprobes is interested in has no intersection at > all with the set that any other consumer of the notify_die events is > interested in, on any architecture. > > Furthermore, the multiplexing of the kprobes events through notify_die > really serves no useful purpose. It just means that > kprobe_exceptions_notify has to demultiplex the events with a switch > statement. There is no significant common code for all events in > kprobe_exceptions_notify, just a simple check whether the event > happened in user mode. > > However, all that is in arch code so can be changed per-arch if > desired. I tend to agree. Unfortunately powers higher than me like these horrible notifier schemes. Then again at least the die path is not performance critical unlike the page faul path where I still need a comment for you on getting rid of the notifier. - 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