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: <87fybc9kg5.fsf@wragg.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:47:06 +0000
From:	David Wragg <david@...gg.org>
To:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: export context switch counts in /proc/*/stat

Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:50:08PM +0000, David Wragg wrote:
>> This patch (against 2.6.19/2.6.19.1) adds the four context switch
>> values (voluntary context switches, involuntary context switches, and
>> the same values accumulated from terminated child processes) to the
>> end of /proc/*/stat, similarly to min_flt, maj_flt and the time used
>> values.
>
> Please put these into new files, as the stat files in /proc are 
> horribly overloaded and have always been somewhat problematic 
> when it comes to changing how things are reported due to internal 
> changes to the kernel.  Cheers,

The delay accounting value was added to the end of /proc/pid/stat back
in July without discussion, so I assumed this approach was still
considered satisfactory.

Putting just these four values into a new file would seem a little
odd, since they have a lot in common with the other getrusage values
that are already in /proc/pid/stat.  One possibility is to add
/proc/pid/rusage, mirroring the full struct rusage in text form, since
struct rusage is already part of the kernel ABI (though Linux doesn't
fill in half of the values).

Or perhaps it makes sense to reorganize all the values from
/proc/pid/stat and its siblings into a sysfs-like one-value-per-file
structure, though that might introduce atomicity and efficiency issues
(calculating some of the values involves iterating over the threads in
the process; with everything in one file, these loops are folded
together).

Any thoughts?


David
-
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ