linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH ftrace/core v3 2/3] ftrace, kprobes: Support IPMODIFY flag to find IP modify conflict

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53CB3537.5050806@hitachi.com>
Date:	Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:19:19 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH ftrace/core v3 2/3] ftrace, kprobes: Support IPMODIFY
 flag to find IP modify conflict

(2014/07/18 22:51), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:09:07 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> "The ops can modify the IP register. This can only be set along with
>>> SAVE_REGS. If another ops is already registered for any of the
>>> functions that this ops will be registered for, then this ops will fail
>>> to register."
>>
>> Not only register, but also set_filter_ip ;)
>> "...will fail to register or set_filter_ip."
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
>>>> index 3214289..e52d86f 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
>>>
>>> I think this should be split into two patches. One that adds the ftrace
>>> infrastructure, and the other that adds the kprobes user of the
>>> IPMODIFY flag.
>>
>> Hmm, I thought that it was natural to introduce new feature and its user
>> together, so that we could use git-bisect safely.
> 
> It should still be bisect friendly. That is, the feature is added
> before the user, not the user before the feature ;-)

Ah, I see.

> I know some people like the feature and user in one patch, but for me,
> when the user is in a different sub system (here it's kprobes) from the
> infrastructure that is changing (ftrace), I prefer separate patches.
> 
> The user patch shows me where the users are. When they are one patch, I
> tend to have them get lost.

OK, then I'll decouple it :)

Thanks!

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/