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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ffe812c9-0f2d-c791-8c93-2ad71849042e@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:09:10 +0530
From:   Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
To:     Pavel Labath <labath@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....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



On Tuesday 08 November 2016 05:28 PM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>>> +     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?

Ok, will do.

~Pratyush