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  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]
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:05:36 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <>
To:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Kieran Bingham <>
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Douglas Anderson <>,
        Nikolay Borisov <>,
        Jan Kiszka <>,
        Jackie Liu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] scripts/gdb: Add rb tree iterating utilities

Quoting Kieran Bingham (2019-03-26 01:52:10)
> Hi Stephen,
> On 25/03/2019 18:45, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Implement gdb functions for rb_first(), rb_last(), rb_next(), and
> > rb_prev(). These can be useful to iterate through the kernel's red-black
> > trees.
> I definitely approve of getting data-structure helpers into scripts/gdb,
> as it will greatly assist debug options but my last attempt to do this
> was with the radix-tree which I had to give up on as the internals were
> changing rapidly and caused continuous breakage to the helpers.

Thanks for the background on radix-tree. I haven't looked at that yet,
but I suppose I'll want to have that too at some point.

> Do you foresee any similar issue here? Or is the corresponding RB code
> in the kernel fairly 'stable'?
> Please could we make sure whomever maintains the RBTree code is aware of
> the python implementation?
> That said, MAINTAINERS doesn't actually seem to list any ownership over
> the rb-tree code, and [0] seems to be pointing at
> Andrew as the probable route in for that code so perhaps that's already
> in place :D

I don't think that the rb tree implementation is going to change. It
feels similar to the list API. I suppose this problem of keeping things
in sync is a more general problem than just data-structures changing.
The only solution I can offer is to have more testing and usage of these
scripts. Unless gdb can "simulate" or run arbitrary code for us then I
think we're stuck reimplementing kernel internal code in gdb scripts so
that we can get debug info out.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists