| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:56:39 -0500 From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> To: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>, Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.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, 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 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 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists