linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] uprobes: preparations for arm port

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: <20131107151601.GA5163@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:16:01 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] uprobes: preparations for arm port


* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 11/07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ typedef ppc_opcode_t uprobe_opcode_t;
> > >  struct arch_uprobe {
> > >  	union {
> > >  		u8	insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > +		u8	ixol[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > >  		u32	ainsn;
> > >  	};
> > >  };
> >
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > > @@ -35,7 +35,10 @@ typedef u8 uprobe_opcode_t;
> > >
> > >  struct arch_uprobe {
> > >  	u16				fixups;
> > > -	u8				insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > +	union {
> > > +		u8			insn[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > +		u8			ixol[MAX_UINSN_BYTES];
> > > +	};
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > >  	unsigned long			rip_rela_target_address;
> > >  #endif
> >
> > Btw., at least on the surface, the powerpc and x86 definitions seem rather
> > similar, barring senseless variations. Would it make sense to generalize
> > the data structure a bit more?
> 
> Heh. You know, I have another patch, see below. It was not tested yet, 
> it should be splitted into 3 changes, and we need to cleanup copy_insn() 
> first. I didn't sent it now because I wanted to merge the minimal 
> changes which allow us to avoid the new arm arch_upobe_* hooks. And of 
> course it needs the review.
> 
> But in short, I do not think we should try to unify/generalize 
> insn/ixol.

That's OK.

> For the moment, please ignore the patch which adds the new ->ixol 
> member.

I didn't actually disagree with it so I pulled it - I was just wondering 
about those cleanliness details.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/