linux-kernel - Re: [for-next][PATCH 12/16] kprobes: Initialize kprobes at postcore

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]

Message-ID: <20190722160133.GI60625@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:01:33 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [for-next][PATCH 12/16] kprobes: Initialize kprobes at
 postcore_initcall

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:00:10AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:42:02 +0100
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> 
> > > I agree with Masami, that the selftest actually caught a bug here. I
> > > think the arch code may need to change as the purpose of Masami's
> > > changes was to enable kprobes earlier in boot. The selftest failing
> > > means that an early kprobe will fail too.  
> > 
> > I just got back from holiday and catching up with emails. Do I still
> > need to merge the arm64 fix making the debug initialisation a
> > core_initcall()?
> > 
> > Can we actually get kprobes invoked before init_kprobes() has been
> > called?
> 
> Bah, I can't remember everything that we discussed. I thought there was
> some more patches that obsoleted my work around. Everything has been
> pushed to Linus, can you see if the upstream still has issues for you?

Upstream is fine since you reverted the postcore_initcall(init_kprobes)
change and used subsys_initcall() instead. So I don't think we need any
arch changes.

-- 
Catalin