linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/14] x86, ptrace: add arch_ptrace_report

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:	Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:07:09 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"markus.t.metzger@...il.com" <markus.t.metzger@...il.com>,
	"roland@...hat.com" <roland@...hat.com>,
	"eranian@...glemail.com" <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	"Villacis, Juan" <juan.villacis@...el.com>,
	"ak@...ux.jf.intel.com" <ak@...ux.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/14] x86, ptrace: add arch_ptrace_report_exit

On 03/27, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@...hat.com]
> >
> >This needs Rolan'd review.
> >
> >But I'd say this has nothing to do with tracehooks. And why do
> >you pass *exit_code to arch_ptrace_report_exit() ?
> >
> >Just add arch_ptrace_report_exit(void) into do_exit() ?
> >
> >From the 3/14 patch:
> >
> >	#define arch_ptrace_report_exit(code) x86_ptrace_report_exit(code)
> >
> >	void x86_ptrace_report_exit(long exit_code)
> >	{
> >	       ptrace_bts_exit();
> >	}
> >
> >This is a bit strange. Why do we need 2 functions, ptrace_bts_exit() and
> >x86_ptrace_report_exit() which just calls the first one?
>
> I did not want to take any shortcuts. I try to maintain the structure
> general_function()->ptrace_report()->arch_ptrace_report().

I see. And honestly, this doesn't look good to me. Yes, this is subjective.

Say, Regardless of CONFIG_X86_PTRACE_BTS we have the non-empty and non-inline
x86_ptrace_untrace() which just calls ptrace_bts_untrace(). And ptrace_bts_untrace()
depends on CONFIG_X86_PTRACE_BTS.

But this is minor.

> Recently, tracehook_report_whatever() calls were added which either do the
> ptrace work directly or call a ptrace function. I try to use those calls, where possible.

Up to Roland, but I still think tracehook_report_whatever() is not the
good place for this stuff. And tracehooks will be changed soon by utrace.

In any case I don't understand why you added yet another helper, you could
just add arch_ptrace_report_exit() into tracehook_report_exit().

Oleg.

--
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/