linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation

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, 15 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500
From:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation

Hi -

> > Well, I'm not in a position to argue line by line about the necessity
> > or the cost of utrace low level guts, but this may represent the most
> > practical engineering balance between functionality / modularity /
> > undesirably intrusive modifications. 
> 
> How intrusive and non-modular is installing a DIE_INT3 notifier?

I'm not sure about all the reasons pro/con, but it looks like
installing such a systemwide hook would force every userspace
breakpoint or kprobe event machine wide to pass through the
hypothetical uprobes layer, whether or not applicable to a current
task.

- FChE
--
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/