linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] arm64: kgdb: fix single stepping

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:   Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:25:52 -0500
From:   Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        <catalin.marinas@....com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
        <yong.zhao@....com>, <Vijaya.Kumar@...iumnetworks.com>,
        <kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] arm64: kgdb: fix single stepping

On 09/16/2016 02:45 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:32:19PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:04:57AM -0500, Jason Wessel wrote:
>>> I added the patch to kgdb-next after fixing up the context since it no
>>> longer applied to the mainline (
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jwessel/kgdb.git/log/?h=kgdb-next).
>>> If there is further discussion on the point above, another patch can be
>>> added, but it I am assuming this is the way you desire it to work as
>>> there are some other architectures that use the same behaviour.  I do
>>> not presently have any ARM64 hardware to validate this particular
>>> change.
>>>
>>> I also added to the patch a "Cc: linux-stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>"
>>> so we can have this appear on some of the older kernels.
>> Since Will asked me to split this patch into a few, I need some reworks
>> to clarify which hunks in the patch are necessary for which version of kernel.
> Yes, splitting the patch would be much better for sorting out the stable
> backports too. Jason, please can you drop the patch for now? I don't mind
> whether the end result goes via arm64 or kgdb, but we should at least both
> agree on it first :)

Splitting it is a very wise idea so that we can have all the -stable kernels patched up with a working single step function.

The separated patches can easily be tagged with the CC line examples as shown below:

Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 3.15.x-
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.4
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.4-4.5

I had dropped the original patch.

Cheers,
Jason.