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 18:52:17 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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 Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:38 PM Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 2019/4/8 1:34, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> I tried this, but no other architecture showed interest in arch_status
> under /proc.
>

Why is that a problem?  It could exist on x86 and not exist on other
arches until needed.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists