linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] hw_breakpoints: Breakpoints arch ability don't need perf events

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, 4 Jul 2011 19:02:23 +0530
From:	"K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] hw_breakpoints: Breakpoints arch ability don't need
 perf events

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:25PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The breakpoint support ability in an arch is not related
> to the fact perf events is built or not. HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
> only shows an ability so this dependency makes no sense
> anymore. Archs that select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT already
> ensure that perf event is built.
> 
> Remove that dependency.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> Cc: Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
> ---
>  arch/Kconfig |    1 -
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig
> index f78c2be..ce4be89 100644
> --- a/arch/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/Kconfig
> @@ -149,7 +149,6 @@ config HAVE_DEFAULT_NO_SPIN_MUTEXES
> 
>  config HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
>  	bool
> -	depends on PERF_EVENTS
> 
>  config HAVE_MIXED_BREAKPOINTS_REGS
>  	bool
> -- 

Just a thought you might want to consider...

The need to keep the ability (HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT) and the user-choice to
enable hardware breakpoints (through HW_BREAKPOINT) in separate config
options isn't very clear to me (and is a bit confusing with very similar
names).

Why not make HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT selectable by the user (which in turn
would turn on PERF_EVENTS) for a given architecture?

Thanks,
K.Prasad

--
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/