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: <20120830150335.GA15868@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:33:35 +0530
From:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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 Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:37:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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?

I prefer fixing both together later, just so nothing breaks while intial
testing, etc.

Ananth

--
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/