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

Message-ID: <450BD5F4.10302@sgi.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:46:12 +0200
From:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
To:	Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev <ltt-dev@...fik.org>,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure)  0.5.108

Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <1158331071.29932.63.camel@...alhost.localdomain>
> 
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:37:51 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
>>> $ grep KPROBES arch/*/Kconf*
>>> arch/i386/Kconfig:config KPROBES
>>> arch/ia64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
>>> arch/powerpc/Kconfig:config KPROBES
>>> arch/sparc64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
>>> arch/x86_64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
>> Send patches. The fact nobody has them implemented on your platform
>> isn't a reason to implement something else, quite the reverse in fact.
> 
> Yes, but the point is: until that's done you can't claim kprobes is a
> valid tracing tool for everyone.

The fact that the remaining architectures haven't bothered implementing
kprobe supposed should not be used as an argument for pushing something
inferior out of laziness.

It's the same with syscalls, the kernel infrastructure is there, but if
you don't bother updating the syscall tables and wrap it in with glibc,
then the call isn't available on your architecture.

The core kprobe infrastructure is available to all architectures, it's
up to the developers of the remaining architectures to implement the
remaining bits.

Jes
-
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/