linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 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:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:00:40 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, aubrey.li@...el.com,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 1/3] /proc/pid/status: Add support for architecture
 specific output

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 14:32:48 +0800 Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The architecture specific information of the running processes could
> > > be useful to the userland. Add support to examine process architecture
> > > specific information externally.
> >
> > The implementation looks just fine to me.  Have you had any feedback on
> > the overall desirability of adding this feature?
> 
> I think I've been the most outspoken, and my not-all-that-strong
> opinion is that I don't really like it.  /proc/PID/status is already a
> bit of a mess, and I don't think we really want it to be a mess that
> is different on different architectures.  Hence my suggestion of
> /proc/PID/x86_status instead.  Or we could do /proc/PID/arch_status, I

arch_status looks like the right thing to do.

Thanks,

	tglx