linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/11] 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]

Message-Id: <1237002075.25062.78.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:41:15 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/11] x86 architecture implementation of Hardware
 Breakpoint interfaces

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 16:30 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> Suppose we never allow callers to register more breakpoints than will
> fit in the CPU's registers.  Do we then use a simple first-come
> first-served algorithm, with no prioritization?  If we do prioritize
> some breakpoint registrations more highly than others, how do we
> inform
> callers that their breakpoint has been kicked out by one of higher
> priority?  And how do we let them know when the higher-priority
> breakpoint has been unregistered, so they can try again?

Do we really need such a mess ? Honestly ... We've been living fine
before without any of that.

Ben.

--
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/