linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL v4.6] MDB Linux Kernel Debugger x86/x86

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: <20160326124838.512a230f@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:48:38 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Jeffrey Merkey <jeffmerkey@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v4.6]  MDB Linux Kernel Debugger x86/x86_64

Hi Ingo,

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:36:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> So neither the x86 nor other affected maintainers have acked these changes or have 
> agreed to merge it - in fact there are outstanding NAKs against this tree, which 
> were not mentioned in the pull request.
> 
> Here's one of the objections by me:
> 
>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/64
> 
> ... which technical objections were replied to by Jeff Merkey by accusing me of 
> trolling:
> 
>   "You were not included on the post since you are not a maintainer of watchdog.c
>    so I am confused as to why you are nacking and trolling me on something not in
>    your area."
> 
>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/1/29/397
> 
> So this tree is very far from being ready and I'm not convinced we want to merge 
> it in its current form. If we merge bits of it then we want to merge it via the 
> x86 tree, not a separate tree.
> 
> In fact I also have more fundamental objections as well, such as the question of 
> unnecessary code duplication: this new MDB debugger overlaps in functionality with 
> the already in-tree kgdb+KDB live kernel debugger approach:
> 
> I don't think we want to see two overlapping solutions in this area, both of which 
> are inferior in their own ways. If then the KDB frontend should be improved: 
> features such as disassembler output, more commands and usability improvements 
> that can and should be added to the KDB front-end instead. I see nothing in this 
> patch that couldn't be added to KDB/KGDB.
> 
> All in one, I'd much rather like to see a gradual set of improvement patches to 
> KDB, to improve live kernel debugging, than this kind of monolithic, arch 
> dependent duplication of functionality.

Thanks for your input clarifying the situation.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell