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  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 18:56:39 -0500
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <>
To:	Harvey Harrison <>,
	Jim Keniston <>
CC:	Srikar Dronamraju <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	LKML <>,
	Maneesh Soni <>,,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <>,
	Rusty Lynch <>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <>,
	Keshavamurthy Anil S <>
Subject: Re: FInal kprobes rollup patches

Hi Harvey,

Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 18:14 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> 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'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.
> OK, I'll take the last bits of your patches 5/6 that aren't already
> cleaned up and send out a unified patchset for you to add your
> acked/signed off by/reviewed by as appropriate.

Sure, I'll review it. It is very helpful to me.
Please Cc: or To: the parsons who are listed in this mail.
Jim, if you can review the fixes which you've suggested,
could you give him your signed-off?

> These are:
> -add stack_addr() macro
> -I prefer the table defintion macros in mine as it avoids the need to
> cast the pointer passed to test_bit, but if you want them
> to be u32 as in your patch, I can change it.

 please do so. we'd like to reduce ifdefs as less as possible:-)

> -wrmsr/wrmsrl - use wrmsr() for both
> -call is_IF_modifier with p->ainsn.insn in both
> -check casting of jprobe_saved_sp, I get some compile warnings currently
> with pointer comparisons to signed/unsigned types.

Could you also add below?
- fix some comments (it clarifies the meanings of the code)
- add fix_riprel(). this useful to reduce ifdefs.
- expand reenter_kprobe(). I think it treat above two blocks.
- reassignment of regs->ip in kprobe_handler can be unified
  to "regs->ip = (unsigned long)addr;"

> That will eliminate nearly all of the remaining ifdefs in my version,
> let me work through this and I'll send out a set for review.
> CHeers,
> Harvey

Best Regards,

Masami Hiramatsu

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


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists