linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: use module parameters instead of debugfs for mballoc

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]

Message-ID: <51191684.5080201@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:04:20 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: use module parameters instead of debugfs for
 mballoc_debug

On 2/11/13 9:54 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:48:01AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>> As another thought, did you consider using dynamic debug for this, or is that
>> too much trickiness?  Might be nice since usually a bug reporter won't have
>> a kernel built with CONFIG_EXT4_DEBUG . . .
> 
> I had assumed that the long term direction was to use tracepoints,
> which also has the advantage of not requiring kernels built with
> CONFIG_EXT4_DEBUG.

I guess dynanmic debug wouldn't either, but yeah, tracepoints make
more sense I suppose.

> Hmm.... one thing though is if we want bug reporters to use
> tracepoints (as opposed to just developers), we'll need to have some
> pre-made shell scripts to make it easy for non-developers to enable
> tracepoints for various problems.

Yep the interface has always been a little clunky.  :)

Thanks,
-Eric

>      	 		   	  	      	  - Ted
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html