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]

Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:14:12 -0500
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.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

Hi Harvey,

Harvey Harrison wrote:
> 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.

OK, I'll review that.

>
> 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.

I agreed that your patches are including some goodness.
So let us merge it into one.


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

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com

--
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/