linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Reduce ifdef mess in ptrace

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]

Message-ID: <310bc462-2c07-67f4-5e30-3acb02f25245@c-s.fr>
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:03:55 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] Reduce ifdef mess in ptrace



Le 24/02/2020 à 11:54, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> writes:
>> Le 24/02/2020 à 03:15, Michael Neuling a écrit :
>>> Christophe,
>>>> Le 28/06/2019 à 17:47, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>>>> The purpose of this series is to reduce the amount of #ifdefs
>>>>> in ptrace.c
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback on this series which aims at fixing the issue you opened at
>>>> https://github.com/linuxppc/issues/issues/128 ?
>>>
>>> Yeah, sorry my bad. You did all the hard work and I ignored it.
>>>
>>> I like the approach and is a long the lines I was thinking. Putting it in a
>>> ptrace subdir, splitting out adv_debug_regs, TM, SPE, Alitivec, VSX.
>>> ppc_gethwdinfo() looks a lot nicer now too (that was some of the worst of it).
>>>
>>> I've not gone through it with a fine tooth comb though. There is (rightly) a lot
>>> of code moved around which could have introduced some issues.
>>>
>>> It applies on v5.2 but are you planning on updating it to a newer base?
>>>
>>
>> As you noticed there is a lot of code moved around, and rebasing
>> produces a lot of conflicts. So I didn't want to spend hours to rebase
>> and rebase without being sure it was the right approach.
>>
>> Now that I got a positive feedback I'll consider rebasing it, hopping
>> that Michael will pick it up.
> 
> I would love to.
> 

Great.

Just sent v3 out.

Christophe