netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: add tracepoint in br_fdb

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, 31 Aug 2017 15:43:44 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: add tracepoint in br_fdb_update

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 23:50:26 +0200
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 22:18:13 -0700
> >   
> > > From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> > > 
> > > This extends bridge fdb table tracepoints to also cover
> > > learned fdb entries in the br_fdb_update path. Note that
> > > unlike other tracepoints I have moved this to when the fdb
> > > is modified because this is in the datapath and can generate
> > > a lot of noise in the trace output. br_fdb_update is also called
> > > from added_by_user context in the NTF_USE case which is already
> > > traced ..hence the !added_by_user check.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>    
> > 
> > Applied.
> > 
> > Let's use dev->name for now and if the tooling can eventually
> > do transparent ifindex->name then we can consider redoing
> > a bunch of networking tracepoints.  
> 
> I agree! :-)
> 

Agreed, but it is yet another case of tracepoints not having
a stable ABI. There is no ABI guarantee on tracing, but it still
makes for user complaints.