linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] powerpc/watchpoint: Disable all available watchpoints when !dawr_force

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: <3042ffeb-0587-79cb-1401-070715d3adb6@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:30:16 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     mpe@...erman.id.au, mikey@...ling.org, apopple@...ux.ibm.com,
        paulus@...ba.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        jolsa@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        mingo@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] powerpc/watchpoint: Disable all available
 watchpoints when !dawr_force_enable



On 4/1/20 12:03 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 01/04/2020 à 08:13, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>> Instead of disabling only first watchpoint, disable all available
>> watchpoints while clearing dawr_force_enable.
> 
> Can you also explain why you change the function name ?

Right. I should have. Will add it in next version.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c | 10 +++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
>> index 311e51ee09f4..5c882f07ac7d 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
>> @@ -50,9 +50,13 @@ int set_dawr(struct arch_hw_breakpoint *brk, int nr)
>>       return 0;
>>   }
>> -static void set_dawr_cb(void *info)
>> +static void disable_dawrs(void *info)
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to keep _cb at the end of the function ?

Sure.

Ravi