linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 5/9] x86/alternative: Split text_poke

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: <20190221102616.586d8552@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 10:26:16 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 5/9] x86/alternative: Split text_poke_bp() into tree
 steps

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:47:16 +0100
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 2/8/19 1:15 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon,  4 Feb 2019 20:58:58 +0100
> > Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com> wrote:
> >   
> >>  
> >> +static void text_poke_bp_set_handler(void *addr, void *handler,
> >> +				     unsigned char int3)
> >> +{
> >> +	bp_int3_handler = handler;
> >> +	bp_int3_addr = (u8 *)addr + sizeof(int3);
> >> +	text_poke(addr, &int3, sizeof(int3));
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +
> >> +static void patch_first_byte(void *addr, const void *opcode, unsigned char int3)
> >> +{
> >> +	/* patch the first byte */
> >> +	text_poke(addr, opcode, sizeof(int3));
> >> +}  
> > Hmm, perhaps get rid of the first function entirely, and just do...
> > (although why have the "int3" here anyway?)
> >   
> 
> These helpers were created because they were used twice in the first versions of
> this patch set. But with the change suggested by Masami, they are called only in
> the text_poke_bp_batch() now, so I am thinking to get rid of them all (removing
> this patch).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

Go ahead.

-- Steve