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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:17:13 -0700 From: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com> To: karim@...rsys.com CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.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>, ltt-dev@...fik.org, systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and >>make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)? > > > If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based > markup? Comment, marker macro, flat patch, don't care much. all would work. > Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same codebase. That was always the intent, or codebase + flat patch if really necessary. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether > a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow > yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's > comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than > *everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out > of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.) Not sure we need scripts, just a normal patch diff would do. I'm not sure any of this alters the markup debate much ... it just would seem to provide a simpler, faster, and more flexible way of hooking in than kprobes. M. - 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