linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: Allow the user not to build hw

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110427195004.GA3654@nowhere>
Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:50:07 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: Allow the user not to build hw_breakpoints

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:54:17AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Why do you have to be able to disable breakpoints to disable perf? That seems seriously backwards, especially since we had breakpoints long before perf...

That started when we implemented breakpoints as counters. Then we realized that
ptrace had its own scheduling that was somehow duplicating what perf was doing.
So we have finally unified that under perf. The good point is that archs don't need
to care much about ptrace breakpoints tracking, just the interface.

But yeah the bad point is that dependency.
--
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/