linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 1/3] /proc/pid/status: Add support for architecture specific output

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:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:38:40 +0800
From:   "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     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 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.

Thanks,
-Aubrey