[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060918151059.GA10106@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:11:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
Subject: Re: LTTng and SystemTAP (Everyone who is scared to read this huge thread, skip to here)
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> > Some of the extensive hooking you do in LTT could be aleviated to a
> > great degree if you used dynamic probes. For example the syscall
> > entry hackery in LTT looks truly scary.
>
> Yes, agreed. The last time I checked, I thought about moving this
> tracing code to the syscall_trace_entry/exit (used for security hooks
> and ptrace if I remember well). I just didn't have the time to do it
> yet.
correct, that's where all such things (auditing, seccomp, ptrace,
sigstop, freezing, etc.) hook into. Much (all?) of the current entry.S
hacks can go away in favor of a much easier .c patch to
do_syscall_trace() and this would reduce a significantion portion of the
present intrusiveness of LTTng.
Ingo
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists