| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 08:35:53 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.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 04/27/2011 12:50 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 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. It really is very bad... without breakpoints, you lose almost all debugging support. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists