linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific arch_uprobe_*

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: <20120830143724.GA24514@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:37:24 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	stan_shebs@...tor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specific
	arch_uprobe_*_step

On 08/30, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:37:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Ananth, Sebastian, what if we start with the patch below? Then
> > we can change arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c to use the static
> > uprobe_*_step() helpers from the 2nd patch.
>
> In principle I am fine with the change.

OK, good.

> > If we agree this code should be per-arch, then why do need other
> > hooks? This is just ugly, we already have arch_pre/post_xol.
> >
> > The only problem is the pending powerpc patches, the change below
> > obviously breaks them. Were they already applied? If not, then
> > probably Ananth can do v6 on top of the patch below ;) The necessary
> > fixup is trivial.
>
> They are under review.

OK, I understand that v6 can confuse the maintainer and complicate the
merging process, please forget about v6.

And yes, this is really minor problem, still it would be nice to avoid
the unnecessary hooks/complications...

So. We can add "weak arch_uprobe" hooks, fix x86, and after powerpc is
merged change both powerpc and x86 in one patch (remove "weak" hooks
and move enable/disable into arch_pre/post_xol).

Or. We can apply the patch I sent right now, you can fix powerpc later,
when it is merged. This all is for 3.7 anyway, and fixup is trivial.

I agree either way. Which way do you prefer?

Sebastian, thanks for v4 you sent. I am still not sure what should we
do, but in any case I'll make the series which includes either 1-2 you
sent previously or this new patch.

Oleg.

--
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/