linux-kernel - Re: [PACTH v1] trace: Add trace events for open(), exec() and uselib()

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:	Mon, 1 Aug 2016 19:13:54 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	robert.foss@...labora.com, mingo@...hat.com, scott@...ntu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PACTH v1] trace: Add trace events for open(), exec() and
 uselib()

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:44:53PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon,  1 Aug 2016 13:25:40 -0400
> robert.foss@...labora.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Scott James Remnant <scott@...ntu.com>
> > 
> > This patch uses TRACE_EVENT to add tracepoints for the open(),
> > exec() and uselib() syscalls so that ureadahead can cheaply trace
> > the boot sequence to determine what to read to speed up the next.
> > 
> 
> Good luck. AFAIK, Viro refuses to have tracepoints in the vfs subsystem.

Damn right.  Somebody wants to use those as private debugging patches -
sure, that's what the mechanism is good for.  Just keep them in your
test builds, where *you* will be responsible for keeping them working, etc.