linux-kernel - Re: utrace comments

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: <20070430092200.GA15773@lst.de>
Date:	Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:22:00 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: utrace comments

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:18:09AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Roland's idea of single-stepping is that it *must* be supported by
> hardware for utrace to use it.  There are a number of architectures
> which can only do single-stepping by modifying the text of the
> program being single stepped.  ARM is one such example.
> 
> As such, even when utrace is complete, some architectures will never
> support in-kernel single step with utrace.  I believe Roland's idea
> is to have single step supported on these via some vapourware userspace
> library.

Does the current arm ptrace code support single stepping in kernelspace?
If yes we absolutely need to continue to support it.

> I'd also like to see utrace become *optional*
> for architectures to support, rather than as it currently stands as
> a *mandatory* requirement when merged.

No way we'd keep both the old ptrace mess and utrace in the same tree.

-
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/