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 15:51:54 -0400
From:	Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, 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 2016-08-01 02:10 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:25:40PM -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.
>
> NAK.  No Tracepoints In VFS.  Not going to happen - any tracepoint can all too
> easily become a cast-in-stone userland ABI.
>

Hey Al,

I'm slightly unfamiliar with this territory, so please forgive my lack 
of knowledge of this topic.

What is the negative side of having tracepoint be a permanent fixture in 
the VFS ABI?
And how is VFS different from other subsystems in that regard?


Rob.