linux-kernel - Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches

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: <1197928823.23402.108.camel@brick>
Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:00:23 -0800
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	srinivasa@...ibm.com, Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <hiramatu@....hitachi.co.jp>,
	Rusty Lynch <rusty.lynch@...el.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Keshavamurthy Anil S <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>
Subject: Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches

On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 16:52 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
> Before porting, could you tell me what differences are important
> to you? We can discuss about it.
> 
> > I just sent out a series of 4 patches equivalent to your patches 1-4/6
> > but based on my already unified kprobes.c/h, You may want to check your
> > handling of restored registers in trampoline_probe_handler which I found
> > when rebasing yours on top of my cleanups.  Not sure if this is
> > important, but it was a difference I found.
> > 
> > X86_32:
> > regs->cs = __KERNEL_CS | get_kernel_rpl();
> > 
> > yours:
> > regs->cs = __KERNEL_CS;
> 
> Because of kretprobe's compatibility, on x86-32 cs should be set rpl().
> But get_kernel_rpl() does not exist on x86-64.
> 

I've already ported it and sent it to you.  It's not really important to
me I just think my fine-grained patches may be of some use to see where
the differences between X86_32/64 ended up being.  Your patches end up
being just about entirely removal of ifdefs when rebased onto my
patches, so it's at least a good secondary check of your patches even
if mine don't go in.  Your patches end up being much smaller against
my version too.

I like my version slightly better because the remaining ifdefs (wrmsr,
etc) and others could be done in a few more small patches that are more
easily reviewable than your large final unification patch.

But, you know the code better than I....

Harvey

--
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/