linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] trace_syscalls: cleanup for syscalls

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:03:34 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace_syscalls: cleanup for syscalls_metadata

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 09:01 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:

> It seems that there is no spec/document guarantees it.
> 
> I searched all NR_syscalls in current kernel source code,
> and I found it is a constant in header file (all archs).
> 
> trace_syscalls.c has already used it as a compile-time constant:
> 
> static DECLARE_BITMAP(enabled_enter_syscalls, NR_syscalls);
> static DECLARE_BITMAP(enabled_exit_syscalls, NR_syscalls);

I guess no one complained about that yet. But that could be because no
one noticed.

Still, is there a reason to make that change other than just a "clean
up"?  What advantage do we have by changing the array into a static
array instead of allocating it at run time?

-- Steve


--
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/