linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/9] kprobes: Cleanup jprobe implementation

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: <20180309185402.301a97ae@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:54:02 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Yang Bo <yangbo@...pin.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/9] kprobes: Cleanup jprobe implementation

On Fri,  9 Mar 2018 21:35:17 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Since we decided to remove jprobe from kernel last year,
> its APIs are disabled and we worked on moving in-kernel
> jprobe users to kprobes or trace-events. And now no jprobe
> users are here anymore.
> 
> I think it is good time to get rid of jprobe implementation
> from the kernel. However, I need other arch developers help
> to complete it, since jprobe is implemented multi arch wide.
> I can remove those code, but can not test all of those.
> 
> Here is the series of patches to show how to do that.
> I tried to remove it from x86 tree. Basically we need to
> do 3 things;
> 
>  - Remove jprobe functions (register/unregister,
>    setjump/longjump) from generic/arch-dependent code.
>    [1/9][2/9][3/9]
>  - Remove break_handler related code.
>    [4/9][5/9][6/9]
>  - Do not disable preemption on exception handler
>    [7/9][8/9][9/9]
> 
> The [3/9] and [6/9] are destractive changes except for x86
> (means causes build errors) since those arch still have some
> references of those functions. So we need to write patches
> similar to [2/9] and [5/9] for each arch before applying those.
> In this series I sorted it as this order just for review,
> [3/9] and [6/9] should be applied after all archs have
> been fixed.
> 
> Also, [7/9] is a kind of destractive, which changes required
> behavior for the pre_handlers which changes regs->ip.
> So we also need a patch similar to [7/9] for each arch too.
> Fortunately, current in-tree such user is very limited, both
> works only on x86. So it is not hurry, but we need to change
> arch dependent code.
>

Hi Masami,

thanks for doing all this. I do want to review this and your other
patch set. I've just been traveling a lot. I came home from California
yesterday and will be leaving Sunday to Portland for ELC. Will you be
there?

-- Steve