linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hw_breakpoint: fix single-stepping when using bpf_overflow

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:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 19:16:26 +0000
From:   Tomislav Novak <tnovak@...a.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw_breakpoint: fix single-stepping when using
 bpf_overflow_handler

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 10:51:56AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 11:59:37AM +0000, Tomislav Novak wrote:
> > Thanks for reviewing!
> > 
> > Given the changes in the arch-independent perf_event.h, I think merging it
> > as a single commit may be easiest (assuming rmk acks it).
> > 
> > Alternatively I could move arm changes into a separate patch, keeping arm64
> > and perf_event.h in this one (possibly splitting out the latter into its own
> > commit). One that's merged, the arm patch could be submitted to linux-arm.
> > What would you prefer?
> 
> Actually, arch/arm*/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c come under the ARM PMU
> profiling, so no need to split the patch. It may need an ack from the
> generic perf maintainers for include/linux/perf.h.
> 
> FWIW,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>

Sorry for the delay! I had forgotten about this patch until I stumbled
upon the same issue again recently with bpftrace.

I'll send a new version of the patch (with updated tags and retested on
on top of v6.4-rc5) in a bit. Think it could be merged via the arm64 tree
or would you recommend I submit it to rmk's patch tracker?

Thanks!
-- 
T.