linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware Breakpoint interfaces

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, 15 Oct 2008 19:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	jason.wessel@...driver.com, avi@...ranet.com,
	richardj_moore@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 2/9] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware
	Breakpoint interfaces

I'm leaving aside the single-step stuff, which I just posted about.

I'm also concerned about getting RF right here.  We need to make sure that
every place that warps ->ip away somewhere also clears RF.  In case of
instruction breakpoints in user space, we might also want to mask RF from
being seen/changed via ptrace/user_regset (a bit like is done for TF).

I'm a little inclined to do a first x86 version without instruction
breakpoint support and hash out the rest of the code for a bit.  Then add
instruction breakpoints in a later patch.  (Not that it has to be a lot
later or anything.  Just to table the detailed review of RF fiddling until
after most of the meaty stuff is pretty baked.)

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/