linux-kernel - Re: [ANNOUNCE] Merkey's Kernel Debugger

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:	Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:45:22 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com
Cc:	"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"Stefan Richter" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	"Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Merkey's Kernel Debugger

On Wednesday 06 August 2008 01:19, jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 August 2008 01:02, jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
> >> > geert@...ux-m68k.org
> >>
> >> No I was not, but I am now.  At any rate, I removed the Microsoft-isms
> >> from the code.  I can cut yet another patch for git6, but git5 was there
> >> -- GPL2 and all.  How about putting in into the kernel guys -- :-)
> >
> > Seriously? Because it doesn't seem to have had enough peer review,
> > it hasn't had widespread testing in somewhere like linux-next or
> > -mm, and we already have kgdb so you have to also explain why you
> > can't improve kgdb in the areas it trails mdb.
>
> If you go back to LKML from 2000, this debugger has been around for 10
> years.  I agree not in the hands of the public, but its very mature
> in comparison to kdb or kgdb.

OK I don't doubt that at all, but I just mean in terms of being reviewed
by Linux people and how it merges with the current kernel (eg. we now
have a debugger, which was unthinkable in 2000 :)).


> > But the ideal outcome would be if you could contribute patches to
> > kgdb to the point where it is as good as mdb. It is already in the
> > tree and supported by a handful of architectures... any chance of
> > that? (I don't know kernel debugger code, so I ask as an interested
> > user)
>
> I plan to work on kdb and yes, there is a version of this that runs
> as an alternate debugger of kdb - you can even switch back and forth
> between them - but that misses the point as well.
>
> I can wait untl its more widespread -- or not.

That would be great if you do work on kgdb... But I guess I do miss
the point, then. Is there a technical difference with kgdb that cannot
be worked around, a difference of opinion with maintainers, a wish to
have mdb features at short notice?
--
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/