linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] scripts/gdb: Add rb tree iterating utilities

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: <155363274033.20095.10762543028999566245@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:39:00 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kbingham@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Nikolay Borisov <n.borisov.lkml@...il.com>,
        Jackie Liu <liuyun01@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] scripts/gdb: Add rb tree iterating utilities

Quoting Jan Kiszka (2019-03-26 10:21:21)
> On 26.03.19 18:05, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Kieran Bingham (2019-03-26 01:52:10)
> >>
> >> 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 get_maintainers.pl [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.
> > 
> 
> Could we possibly leave some link in form of comment in the related headers or 
> implementations? Won't magically solve the problem but at least increase changes 
> that author actually read them when they start changing the C implementations.
> 

Sure. Can you propose some sort of patch against the 'list'
implementation for this? I'd like to just use whatever policy is decided
here.