linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] uprobes: check for single step support

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:	Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:02:11 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] uprobes: check for single step support

On 10/17, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> * Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in> [2012-10-14 21:23:06]:
>
> >  void __weak arch_uprobe_enable_step(struct arch_uprobe *arch)
> >  {
> > -	user_enable_single_step(current);
> > +	if (arch_has_single_step())
> > +		user_enable_single_step(current);
> >  }
> >
> >  void __weak arch_uprobe_disable_step(struct arch_uprobe *arch)
>
> This change is fine. But I am wondering if should have a dummy
> arch_uprobe_enable_step / arch_uprobe_disable_step in uprobes ARM.

Or, better, we can kill it. We wertr going to do this anyway, we were
waiting for powerpc port.

Just I do not know how this change should be routed, it should update
both x86/powerpc.

Or do you think arch_uprobe_enable_step() still makes any sense?

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/