linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] kprobes: Add separate preempt

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]

Message-ID: <1309470997.12449.614.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:56:37 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] kprobes: Add separate preempt_disabling for
 kprobes

On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 11:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> To solve this, I've added a per_cpu variable called
> kprobe_preempt_disabled, that is set by the kprobe code. If it is set,
> the preempt_schedule() will not preempt the code.

Damn this is ugly. Can we step back and see if we can make the
requirement for kprobe to disable preemption go away?

Why does it have to do that anyway? Isn't it keeping enough per-task
state to allow preemption over the single step?


--
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/