linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c

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: <1208260942.6395.6.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:02:22 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c

On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 17:23 +0530, K. Prasad wrote:

> +	trace_mark(futex_wait_called, "uaddr:%p fshared:%p val:%u "
> +			"abs_time:%p bitset:%d",
> +			uaddr, fshared, val, abs_time, bitset);

This is some seriuosly ugly looking gunk, why would we want stuff like
that scattered across the code?

What is wrong with a few simple hooks like:

  trace_futex_wait(uaddr, fshares, val, abs_time, bitset);

and then deal with that.

Also, you seem to expose way too much futex internals; do you really
need that? People will go use this marker crap like ABI and further
restrain us from changing the code.

/me unhappy.

--
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/