linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] ftrace with regs + live patching for ppc64 LE (ABI v2)

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:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:51:12 +1100
From:	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To:	Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] ftrace with regs + live patching for ppc64 LE
 (ABI v2)

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:38:48 +0100
Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de> wrote:

> Changes since v5:
>   * extra "std r0,LRSAVE(r1)" for gcc-6
>     This makes the code compiler-agnostic.
>   * Follow Petr Mladek's suggestion to avoid
>     redefinition of HAVE_LIVEPATCH

I looked at the patches - well mostly patches 1 and 2, some quick questions

1. I know -mprofile-kernel is a big optimization win, do we need it or can
we incrementally add it?
2. Some of the hardcoded checks for opcode are hard to review, I know they've
been there in similar forms for a while. May be as an iterative step we should
give the numbers some meaning and use proper helpers for it.

I am going to give the patches a spin

Balbir Singh.