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]

Message-ID: <20160930012728.GA4611@remoulade>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 02:27:28 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.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 Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 06:11:44PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> 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);
> >>>>}

> >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.

Cheers!

FWIW, given ptsump_initialize() is only going to be called with the ptdump core
and debugfs code, I'm not all that concerned by what it's called. A few leading
underscores is about the only thing that comes to mind, but even as-is I think
it should be fine.

Thanks,
Mark.