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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190503124906.576c21f7@gandalf.local.home> Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 12:49:06 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions On Fri, 3 May 2019 09:44:35 -0700 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:35 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 12:31:26PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > I guess the real question is, what's the performance impact of doing > > > that? > > > > Is there anyone that considers i386 a performance platform? > > Not me. As far as I'm concerned, I will basically always gladly trade > several cycles for simplicity on 32-bit. > So should I wait for a new PATCH 1 from Peter to implement it this way? I'd like to get this into the next merge window (although, I am marking it for stable since it fixes a bug for live kernel patching). Linus, what's your thoughts? -- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists