linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] Move bp_type_idx to include/linux/hw

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]

Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:01:28 +0100
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Thomas Huth" <thuth@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Chas Williams" <3chas3@...il.com>,
        "Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@...belt.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Andrew Waterman" <waterman@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        "Albert Ou" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Move bp_type_idx to include/linux/hw_breakpoint.h

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, at 21:23, Thomas Huth wrote:
> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
>
> This has a "#ifdef CONFIG_*" that used to be exposed to userspace.
>
> The names in here are so generic that I don't think it's a good idea
> to expose them to userspace (or even the rest of the kernel).  There are
> multiple in-kernel users, so it's been moved to a kernel header file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Waterman <waterman@...s.berkeley.edu>
> Reviewed-by: Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
> Message-Id: <1447119071-19392-10-git-send-email-palmer@...belt.com>
> [thuth: Remove it also from tools/include/uapi/linux/hw_breakpoint.h]
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>

It took me a while to understand this code enough to be confident this
is the right solution. Note that CONFIG_HAVE_MIXED_BREAKPOINTS_REGS is
purely dependent on the architecture and could be replaced with something
that checks for x86||sh but it should be safe to assume that the
enum should never have been part of the uapi header.

Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

      Arnd