linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] In-kernel gdbstub based on utrace Infrastructure.

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:	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:16:50 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] In-kernel gdbstub based on utrace Infrastructure.

* Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@...hat.com> wrote:

> peterz wrote: 
> 
> > Hmm,. wouldn't it make much more sense to extend the current kgdb stub
> > to include userspace debugging, providing an all-in-one solution?
> > I think it would be much more powerful to be able to observe the full
> > software stack and not be limited by this user<->kernel barrier.
> 
> There exist other tools for this broad a scope (systemtap being one), 
> and present gdb is not well suited for this.  That makes this idea an 
> exciting potential for the future, but not a practical short-term 
> goal.

Well, but Peter's suggestion is the obvious next step - or even a 
necessary first step in my view.

kgdb exists here and today in the kernel and you cannot just build a 
facility that doesnt replace it and doesnt integrate well with it.

So if a unified user/kernel model for debugging is a 'long term' feature 
in your view then perhaps this framework (which introduces _extensive_ 
hooks all around the kernel) is not designed/approached in the right way 
and should not be merged in this form.

Concentrating on 'other tools' just generates extensive dependencies on 
something that is lacking - making it even harder to implement unified 
debugging down the line.

Thanks,

	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/