[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hyUrkUcee-QqNWkfc3wV9ziE7DLVDBcvm_fx_Sto6A6tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:55:40 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: More hw_breakpoint scariness reduction
2015-08-15 0:38 GMT+02:00 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>:
> Would you all consider it acceptable to disallow watchpoints on per
> cpu data entirely? I can think of a *lot* of places where hitting #DB
> when accessing per cpu data from entry asm would be bad.
>
> Of course, actually implementing that might be less than entirely fun,
> given that a cpu could be onlined after creating a watchpoint.
Well I think there will always be places where setting a breakpoint is
a bad idea. The same goes for kprobes. We can't fix all of them.
Kernel breakpoints can only be set by root users so it's not a
security issue. Besides, kernel breakpoints should only be used by
kernel hackers (perf, kdb).
Given the wide use of per-cpu data, forbidding all of them will
seriously reduce the usability of kernel breakpoints. Not that I think
they are really used in practice though ;-)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists