linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dump: Make ptdump debugfs a separate option

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:   Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:11:44 -0700
From:   Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dump: Make ptdump debugfs a separate option

On 09/29/2016 05:48 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:31:09PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> On 09/29/2016 05:13 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:32:55PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>>>> +int ptdump_register(struct ptdump_info *info, const char *name)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	ptdump_initialize(info);
>>>> +	return ptdump_debugfs_create(info, name);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> It feels like a layering violation to have the core ptdump code call the
>>> debugfs ptdump code. Is there some reason this has to live here?
>>
>> Which 'this' are you referring to here? Are you suggesting moving
>> the ptdump_register elsewhere or moving the debugfs create elsewhere?
>
> Sorry, I should have worded that better.
>
> I meant moving ptdump_register into ptdump_debugfs.c, perhaps renamed to make it
> clear it's debugfs-specific.
>
> We could instead update existing users to call ptdump_debugfs_create()
> directly, and have that call ptdump_initialize(), which could itself become a
> staic inline in a header.

Ah okay, I see what you are suggesting. ptdump_initialize should still
happen regardless of debugfs status though so I guess 
ptdump_debugfs_create would just get turned into just ptdump_initialize
which seems a little unclear. I'll come up with some other shed 
colors^W^Wfunction names.

Thanks,
Laura