linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/core: fast breakpoint modification via _IOC_MODIFY

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: <CAMmz+Ym4yyAAYw02EtxSG7Duv_Pkg3Z+cYrgmW5Esm8Mgdx4-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:02:22 -0800
From:   Milind Chabbi <chabbi.milind@...il.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Milind Chabbi <chabbi.milind@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        linux-man@...r.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/core: fast breakpoint modification via _IOC_MODIFY_BREAKPOINT

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:04:40AM -0800, Milind Chabbi wrote:
>> Hi Jirka,
>>
>> I see the tabs in my sent email, do you have suggestions on how best to
>> send this patch so that the tabs are preserved by the email client?
>> Can anybody else also check if they received with/without tabs?
>>
>> release_bp_slot/reserve_bp_slot majic is not necessary since
>> _IOC_MODIFY_BREAKPOINT ioctl modifies an already registered breakpoint
>> without affecting the count of breakpoints active.
>
> but AFAICS you allow to change the breakpoint type (bp_type)
> and slot counts are based on the breakpoint type
>
> jirka

Jirka,
I am not able to fully understand your concern.
Can you point to a code file and line related to your observation?
The patch is modeled after the existing modify_user_hw_breakpoint() function
present in events/hw_breakpoint.c; don't you see this problem in that code?

-Milind