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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:42:01 +0800
From:   "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 2019/4/18 21:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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 Andy and Thomas, let me change the patch to use arch_status instead.