linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip v3 4/7] kprobes: Ignore break

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 23:14:28 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
        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>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v3 4/7] kprobes: Ignore break_handler

On Fri, 18 May 2018 08:20:34 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Ignore break_handler related code because it was only
> > used by jprobe and jprobe is removed.
> 
> I changed this description to:
> 
>  ============
>  Subject: kprobes: Don't call the ->break_handler() in generic kprobes code
> 
>  Don't call the ->break_handler() from the core kprobes code, because it was only 
>  used by jprobes which got removed.
> 
>  ( In a followup patch we'll remove the remaining calls in low level 
>    arch handlers as well and remove the callback altogether. )
>  ============
> 
> Please try to be a lot less vague in changelogs when it's possible and relevant!
> 
> I.e. saying "Ignore break_handler related code" is annoyingly vague, it doesn't 
> explain things well at all. Saying "Don't call the ->break_handler()" is just as 
> compact, yet it also makes it very clear what's done in the patch...

OK, I'll try to describe more concretely and straightforwardly.

Thank you for telling me your advice!!

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>