linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] scripts/gdb: Provide linux constants

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]

Date:	Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:05:44 +0100
From:	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To:	Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, maxime.coquelin@...com,
	peter.griffin@...aro.org, lee.jones@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] scripts/gdb: Provide linux constants

On 2016-01-20 12:15, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> Some macro's and defines are needed when parsing memory, and without
> compiling the kernel as -g3 they are not available in the debug-symbols.
> 
> We use the pre-processor here to extract constants to a dedicated module
> for the linux debugger extensions
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...aro.org>
> ---
> 
> I've added a 'constants.py' which is automatically generated. This allows
> values not available to the debugger, through #defines to be provided to
> our scripts.
> 
> The alternative method for this is to create a c-object file to obtain values
> through symbols instead, and compile segments with -g3 to include macro
> definitions in the debug-info.
> 
> I'd appreciate your thoughts on these options.

I cannot assess your second proposal. How invasive will it be? Is it
promising to reduce the maintenance? What will be the impact of -g3?

This approach seems pragmatic and sufficient. Would be fine with me
unless the other has significant advantages.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux