linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Fix int1 recursion when no perf_bp

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: <CAO6TR8XvyPbBrqM6D+bFK_ajL9jKeuqZT-TviXzkGyh00unkXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:11:37 -0700
From:	Jeff Merkey <linux.mdb@...il.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] Fix int1 recursion when no perf_bp_event is registeredy

Is there anything else I need to do on this patch, is it acceptable,
do you want a v3 that disables the errant breakpoints?  Problem with
that approach is if in fact there is a "lazy" breakpoint we might end
up clearing it being set if it fires off too soon.

So this is the first time I have submitted a patch through this new
process so what happens now?
--
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/