linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kdb: Fix breakpoint enable to be silent if already enabled

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20241028203735.GA919150@lichtman.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 20:37:35 +0000
From: Nir Lichtman <nir@...htman.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: jason.wessel@...driver.com, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdb: Fix breakpoint enable to be silent if already
 enabled

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:38:00AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 1:47 PM Nir Lichtman <nir@...htman.org> wrote:
> >
> > Fix the breakpoint enable command (be) to a logic that is inline with the
> > breakpoint disable command (bd) in which if the breakpoint is already in
> > an enabled state, do not print the message of enabled again to the user.
> 
> I don't ever use these commands (if I'm setting breakpoints them I'm
> using kgdb, not kdb), but this seems OK to me in general. I'm a little
> curious why you don't also make the "breakpoint clear" command
> consistent.
> 

After looking deeper into this, reason this is not applicable for the "bc"
command is that after clearing the breakpoint, upon trying to clear it again,
an error will occur that says the breakpoint doesn't exist anymore hence this
logic is not applicable for "bc" which unlike "be"/"bd" completely clear out the bp

Thanks,
Nir

> -Doug