| 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: <20070430101831.GA9814@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:18:31 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: utrace comments On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:33:31AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > Does the current arm ptrace code support single stepping in kernelspace? > > If yes we absolutely need to continue to support it. > > single stepping of user space code via standard ptrace calls, yes. > > > > 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. > > Given the stated arguments from yourself and Roland, that only leaves > one solution to that. > > I have no real problem with a decision being made to drop kernel-based > single stepping _provided_ we have some replacement strategy in place > and readily available. At the moment I've not seen such a strategy. Umm, no. A major regression in the ptrace functionality for some architectures is simply not acceptable. We can't merge utrace if we break existing userspace ABIs, and losing single stepping support is exactly that. - 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