[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180110203352.GS6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:33:52 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: Fix optimize_nops() checking
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:26:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Imagine just how crazy that would be to debug. You'd be basically
> executing insane code, and looking at the sources - or even the
> binaries - it would _look_ completely sane.
Been there done that.. we have too much self modifying code for that
not to have been needed.
Use gdb on /proc/kcore and disassemble self to see the _real_ code.
But yes, tricky stuff. Not arguing we need relocations in alternatives,
just saying debugging them (and static keys and others) is great fun.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists