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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609171627400.6761@scrub.home>
Date:	Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:16:40 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, karim@...rsys.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

Hi,

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > If they are useful and not hurting anyone, why should we?
> 
> FYI, whether it is true that "they not hurting anyone" is one of those 
> "secondary issues" that I analyzed in great detail in the emails 
> yesterday, and which you opted not to "further dvelve into":

Ingo, you happily still ignore my primary issues, how serious do you 
expect me to take this?

> so at least to me the rule in such a situation is clear: if we have the
> choice between two approaches that are useful in similar ways [*] but
> one has a larger flexibility to decrease the total maintainance cost,
> then we _must_ pick that one.

That would assume the choices are mutually exclusive, which you haven't 
proven at all.

To put everything in yet another perspective: We have the kernel full of 
security hooks, which are likely more invasive than any trace marker ever 
will be. These security hooks are well hated by a few developers, but we 
merged them anyway, because they are useful.
So the big question is now, why should it be impossible to create and 
merge a well defined set of markers, which can be used by any tracer?

bye, Roman
-
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/