kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dump: Make ptdump debugfs a separate option

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

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

Message-ID: <20160930004852.GC4369@remoulade>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:48:53 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dump: Make ptdump debugfs a separate option

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 05:31:09PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 09/29/2016 05:13 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:32:55PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >>+int ptdump_register(struct ptdump_info *info, const char *name)
> >>+{
> >>+	ptdump_initialize(info);
> >>+	return ptdump_debugfs_create(info, name);
> >> }
> >
> >It feels like a layering violation to have the core ptdump code call the
> >debugfs ptdump code. Is there some reason this has to live here?
> 
> Which 'this' are you referring to here? Are you suggesting moving
> the ptdump_register elsewhere or moving the debugfs create elsewhere?

Sorry, I should have worded that better.

I meant moving ptdump_register into ptdump_debugfs.c, perhaps renamed to make it
clear it's debugfs-specific.

We could instead update existing users to call ptdump_debugfs_create()
directly, and have that call ptdump_initialize(), which could itself become a
staic inline in a header.

Thanks,
Mark.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.