linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090331205413.EDEFFFC2A8@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, oleg@...hat.com,
	adobriyan@...il.com, mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	fche@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2

> I do have a really large objection of merging the current messy double
> ptrace implementation.  If current utrace based ptrace isn't 100% ready
> there's absolutely no point in merging it.  

There is no "current" utrace-ptrace implementation.  I haven't proposed
one for merging.  When one is ready and working, we can discuss its actual
technical details then.

> Other user would be even better, e.g. the seccomp rewrite.

The seccomp rewrite is a very simple user for which I have a prototype
patch.  (It needs testing, but that should be easy enough.)  The only
real complexity there is in deciding how to merge those changes.
Its components are:

* clean up Kconfig
* remove old arch/asm hooks
** mips
** powerpc
** sh
** sparc
** x86
* replace kernel/seccomp.c with utrace-based one

Except for the first one, doing it in small incremental changes would
leave some intermediate states with no seccomp feature usable in the
tree.  (And, of course, CONFIG_SECCOMP will require CONFIG_UTRACE
thereafter.)  Please advise on how many pieces to slice it into and
how to stage the merging.

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/