linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] systemtap: fix up on_each

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:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:53:11 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	systemtap@...rceware.org
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] systemtap: fix up on_each_cpu() for kernels 2.6.26+

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 11:51 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> In kernel 2.6.26, this patch
> 
> commit 15c8b6c1aaaf1c4edd67e2f02e4d8e1bd1a51c0d
> Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> Date:   Fri May 9 09:39:44 2008 +0200
> 
>     on_each_cpu(): kill unused 'retry' parameter
> 
> means that runtime/time.c is now using the wrong calling conventions.
> Fix this up and surround it by kernel versioning #ifdefs.

By the way, this is a classic illustration of the fragility problem in
holding the systemtap runtime outside of the kernel.  If it had been
in-kernel, all this would be fixed up and running and no-one would even
have noticed.

At least with changes in argument numbers, the compile breaks ... it
would have been a lot nastier if one of the variables simply changed
meaning ...

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/