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]
Date:   Sun, 7 Apr 2019 10:34:33 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        aubrey.li@...el.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/3] /proc/pid/status: Add support for architecture
 specific output

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:32 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Aubrey Li wrote:
>
> > The architecture specific information of the running processes could
> > be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture
> > specific information externally.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> > Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
>
> This really lacks
>
> Cc: Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>
> Cc'ed now.
>

I certainly understand why you want to expose this info, but would it
make more sense to instead add an arch_status file in /proc with
architecture-specific info?  Or maybe an x86_status field for x86
status, etc.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists