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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OFA90286D9.9C068080-ON802571EA.00322217-802571EA.00330817@uk.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:17:24 +0100
From:	Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108


Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > I don't think anyone is saying that static tracepoints do not have
> > their limitations, or that dynamic tracepointing is useless. But
> > that's not the point ... why can't we have one infrastructure that
> > supports both? Preferably in a fairly simple, consistent way.
>
> primarily because i fail to see any property of static tracers that are
> not met by dynamic tracers. So to me dynamic tracers like SystemTap are
> a superset of static tracers.

There is one example whethere dynamic tracing is difficult or very messy to
implement and that's for tracepoints needed during system and device
initialization. In this sense dynamic is not a practical superset of
static. However I believe the tooling, for dynamic trace should work for
static as well.

- -
Richard J Moore
IBM Advanced Linux Response Team - Linux Technology Centre
MOBEX: 264807; Mobile (+44) (0)7739-875237
Office: (+44) (0)1962-817072

-
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/