linux-kernel - Re: [for-next][PATCH 2/2] tracing: Use temp buffer when filtering events

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, 5 May 2016 08:40:41 -0700
From:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [for-next][PATCH 2/2] tracing: Use temp buffer when filtering
 events

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2016 11:32:51 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > Think about it, what's the difference if the interrupt came in just
> > before the trace or just after? It still came in the same location with
> > respect to the normal flow of the code. The only difference is, where
> > we recorded it.
> 
> Also, if we used a temp buffer for each one, the same thing would
> happen. The interrupt would be committed first before returning back to
> the interrupted event. Perf does the same thing, but all the time.

yeah. good point. there is no actual 'order' here.
The whole thing looks good to me. 
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>