linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] ptrace: remove incorrect unlikelys

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, 25 Mar 2009 08:21:29 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ptrace: remove incorrect unlikelys


* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> Impact: clean up
> 
> Accounding to the annotated branch profiler, the unlikelys used by
> ptrace is incorrect every time.
> 
>  correct incorrect  %        Function                  File              Line
>  ------- ---------  -        --------                  ----              ----
> 
>        0    24176 100 syscall_trace_leave            ptrace.c             1444
>        0    21478 100 syscall_trace_enter            ptrace.c             1424
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
> index 06ca07f..74a16db 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -1421,7 +1421,7 @@ asmregparm long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	    tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
>  		ret = -1L;
>  
> -	if (unlikely(current->audit_context)) {
> +	if (current->audit_context) {

i suspect you got this result because you are running Fedora with 
auditd enabled and running, right? Does SuSE and Ubuntu run with 
auditing enabled as well? If yes then removing this annotation would 
be right - otherwise the auditing-enabled case is considered the 
less likely variant. (despite it being 100% wrong for your 
particular configuration)

	Ingo
--
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/