linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] arm64: hw_breakpoint: Handle inexact watchpoint addresses

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: <CAJt8pk9tH5nm5sUsKx-dAvW4uzKP+EoRumhYV1mXsU_mk6dRDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:58:53 +0000
From:   Pavel Labath <labath@...gle.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
        onestero@...hat.com, Pavel Labath <test.tberghammer@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] arm64: hw_breakpoint: Handle inexact watchpoint addresses

>>
>>               /* Do we need to handle the stepping? */
>>               if (is_default_overflow_handler(wp))
>>                       step = 1;
>> -
>> -unlock:
>> -             rcu_read_unlock();
>>       }
>> +     if (min_dist > 0 && min_dist != -1) {
>> +             /* No exact match found. */
>> +             wp = slots[closest_match];
>> +             info = counter_arch_bp(wp);
>> +             info->trigger = addr;
>> +             perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
>> +     }
>
> Why don't we need to bother with the stepping in the case of a non-exact
> match?

Good catch. I think we do. I must have dropped that part somehow.

Pratyush, could you include the attached fixup in the next batch?

regards,
pavel

View attachment "fixup.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (493 bytes)