linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Linux Markers 0.4 (+dynamic probe loader) for 2.6.17

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.4.64.0609211418190.6762@scrub.home>
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:26:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	prasanna@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, 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 Markers 0.4 (+dynamic probe loader) for 2.6.17

Hi,

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> It affects all tracers: SystemTap/LKST has to adapt to such a scheme 
> too, because currently there's no markup scheme in the kernel. So this 
> is not something 'against' LTT, but something /for/ a unified landscape 
> of tracers. (and as i mentioned it before, it will be easy for you to 
> offer a simple "LTT speedup patch", which distros and the upstream 
> kernel can consider separately. But it must be /optional/.)

Out of curiosity: How exactly would it hurt this unifiation, if you left 
some of the implementation details simply to the archs?

> So far i have not seen any real arguments against this simple but 
> fundamental upstream requirement which i pointed out for v0.1 already.

It's funny, after reality sets in, I'll get exactly what I asked for in 
the first place, now I only have to figure out a way to do this without 
getting insulted by almost everyone...

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/