linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

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: <20060914151905.GB29906@Krystal>
Date:	Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:19:05 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>
Cc:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
	Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...s.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

* Ingo Molnar (mingo@...e.hu) wrote:
> 
> * Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> 
> the key point is that we want _zero_ "static tracepoints". Firstly, 
> static tracepoints are fundamentally limited:
> 
>  - they can only be added at the source code level
> 
>  - modifying them requires a reboot which is not practical in a 
>    production environment

Not for kernel modules : unload/load is enough.

>  - there can only be a limited set of them, while many problems need 
>    finegrained tracepoints tailored to the problem at hand

Not true with the dynamic facility loading. LTTng can register new events upon
module load/unload.

> 
>  - conditional tracepoints are typically either nonexistent or very 
>    limited.
> 
Maybe, but it can be useful to have static instrumentation available for those
limited conditional tracepoints.

> But besides the usability problems, the most important problem is that 
> static tracepoints add a _constant maintainance overhead_ to the kernel. 
> I'm talking from first hand experience: i wrote 'iotrace' (a static 
> tracer) in 1996 and have maintained it for many years, and even today 
> i'm maintaining a handful of tracepoints in the -rt kernel. I _dont_ 
> want static tracepoints in the mainline kernel.
> 

If the trace points are modified with the code by the ones who make the
original code changes, it lessens the maintainance overhead. Furthermore, if
there is a major change in a code path that requires rethinking the trace
points, the person introducing the change has the best knowledge of what to do
with the trace point. I think that trace point maintainance should be left to
subsystem maintainers, not a centralised task done by distributions once in a
while.

Talking about experience, Karim has maintained the original LTT trace points,
which targeted key kernel event, for years without major trace points changes
between kernel versions. I think he already proved that maintainance of static
trace points in not an issue.

However, I restate that my position is that both static and dynamic
instrumentation of the kernel are a necessity and that a tracer core should be
usable by both.

Mathieu

OpenPGP public key:              http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint:     8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/