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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060915183432.GJ4577@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:34:32 -0400
From:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108]

Hi -

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 07:31:48PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-09-15 am 13:08 -0400, ysgrifennodd Frank Ch. Eigler:
Yeah, or something. :-)

> > Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> > - where 1000-cycle int3-dispatching overheads too high
> 
> Why are your despatching overheads 1000 cycles ? (and if its due to int3
> why are you using int 3 8))

Smart teams from IBM and Hitachi have been hammering away at this code
for a year or two now, and yet (roughly) here we are.  There have been
experiments involving plopping branches instead of int3's at probe
locations, but this is self-modifying code involving multiple
instructions, and appears to be tricky on SMP/preempt boxes.

- FChE
-
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/