linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instruction patching

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: <1373561176.17876.44.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:46:16 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instruction
 patching

On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:31 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> The current code assumes that one of the two code sequences is a NOP,
> and therefore that jumping over the region is legal.  This does not
> allow for transitioning one active code sequence to another.

Correct, and I think we should keep the two changes separate, as the NOP
case is trivial. No need to complicate the trivial and common updates
(jump_labels and ftrace). But for things like kprobes, we could do a bit
more complex code, but it should probably be separate.

Perhaps call this text_poke_nop_bp()?

-- Steve


--
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/