linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Packaging libtraceevent.so

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:	Tue, 3 Dec 2013 10:22:08 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Packaging libtraceevent.so

On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:02:18 +0900
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
> 
> (also add Jiri to CC list, hi!)

Ug, I thought I added him, but looking at my email, I must have thought
I did but did not. :-/

> 
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:03:22 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > The question has recently come up in Fedora about packaging the
> > libtraceevent.so library. Currently there's 4 users of it:
> >
> >  1) perf
> >  2) trace-cmd
> >  3) powertop
> >  4) rasdaemon
> >
> > But each have their own copy of the code.
> >
> > Both perf and trace-cmd are the major developers of the package, and I
> > would recommend that they continue using the *.a version, but for those
> > tools that are simple users of the library, it would probably make
> > sense to have them use libtraceevent.so and remove their copies from
> > the code (powertop and rasdaemon).
> >
> > The question that I'm posing here is, what currently needs to be done
> > to have this happen?
> 
> I think the most important thing is error handling.  The filter parser
> code still has some calls to die().  It should be converted to return
> error and appropriate error messages IMHO.  But I didn't check it'd
> affect to the end-user APIs though.

Yep that should be cleaned up as well.

> 
> And it needs to add plugin APIs before the public release.

I agree with that too.

> 
> >
> > Is the API stable enough for a release?
> 
> Well, afaics the plugin unregister API should pass pevent as an argument
> so that it can unregister individual event/function handlers in it.
> 
> Other than that I think it's pretty stable. :)

OK, lets work on getting these minor things fixed and get it ready for
a public library.

-- 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/