linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v11 1/7] ARM: probes: move all probe code to dedicate directory

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]

Date:	Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:27:46 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Cc:	tixy@...aro.org, linux@....linux.org.uk, lizefan@...wei.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v11 1/7] ARM: probes: move all probe code to dedicate
 directory

(2014/12/03 14:28), Wang Nan wrote:
> On 2014/12/3 12:38, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2014/12/02 19:23), Wang Nan wrote:
>>> On 2014/12/2 12:59, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>> (2014/12/01 17:48), Wang Nan wrote:
>>>>> In discussion on LKML (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/28/158), Russell
>>>>> King suggest to move all probe related code to arch/arm/probes. This
>>>>> patch do the work. Due to dependency on 'arch/arm/kernel/patch.h', this
>>>>> patch also move patch.h to 'arch/arm/include/asm/patch.h', and related
>>>>> '#include' directive are also midified to '#include <asm/patch.h>'.
>>>>
>>>> Moving is good to me, but renaming files are also required I think.
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm/Makefile                                |  1 +
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => include/asm}/patch.h         |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/kernel/Makefile                         | 16 ++--------------
>>>>>  arch/arm/kernel/jump_label.c                     |  2 +-
>>>>>  arch/arm/kernel/patch.c                          |  3 +--
>>>>>  arch/arm/probes/Makefile                         | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes-arm.c        |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes-common.c     |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes-test-arm.c   |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes-test-thumb.c |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes-test.c       |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes-test.h       |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes-thumb.c      |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes.c            |  2 +-
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/kprobes.h            |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/probes-arm.c         |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/probes-arm.h         |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/probes-thumb.c       |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/probes-thumb.h       |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/probes.c             |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/probes.h             |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/uprobes-arm.c        |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/uprobes.c            |  0
>>>>>  arch/arm/{kernel => probes}/uprobes.h            |  0
>>>>
>>>> As I did on x86, these would be better renamed as expressing what they do.
>>>> I guess most of the files may have emulate-*.c or decode-*.c :)
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. I posted another patch in this thread. The directory tree is as follow:
>>>
>>> arch/arm/probes/
>>> |-- Makefile
>>> |-- decode-arm.c
>>> |-- decode-arm.h
>>> |-- decode-thumb.c
>>> |-- decode-thumb.h
>>> |-- decode.c
>>> |-- decode.h
>>> |-- kprobes
>>> |   |-- actions-arm.c
>>> |   |-- actions-common.c
>>> |   |-- actions-thumb.c
>>> |   |-- kprobes.c
>>> |   |-- kprobes.h
>>> |   |-- test-arm.c
>>> |   |-- test-core.c
>>> |   |-- test-core.h
>>> |   `-- test-thumb.c
>>> `-- uprobes
>>>     |-- actions-arm.c
>>>     |-- uprobes.c
>>>     `-- uprobes.h
>>>
>>> 2 directories, 19 files
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> Yeah, that looks better :)
>>
>> Btw, if you introduce probes/{kprobes,uprobes}/, *probes.c should be core.c too,
>> since the directories already show its name. And also, both dirs should have its
>> own Makefile.
>>
> 
> Seprated Makefile may introduce extra complexity. Think about someone try to compile
> kprobe as a module (currently it is impossible due to dependencies between kprobe and
> kernel core, but decoupling is possible), seprated Makefiles may force him to
> create at least 3 modules for kprobe, even if one module is enough.

Hmm, OK, agreed.

> 
> Anyway, there may some features in kernel build system can help him. I'll post
> v12 patch series based on your suggestion.

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/