linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] dynamic debug

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: <20080616181920.GA30284@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:19:21 -0400
From:	"'Jason Baron'" <jbaron@...hat.com>
To:	Takashi Nishiie <t-nishiie@...css.fujitsu.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	joe@...ches.com, greg@...ah.com, nick@...k-andrew.net,
	randy.dunlap@...cle.com, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] dynamic debug

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:26:12AM +0900, Takashi Nishiie wrote:
> Jason Baron wrote:
> >Each kernel sub-system seems to have its own way of dealing with 
> >debugging statements. Some of these methods include 'dprintk', 
> >'pr_debug', 'dev_debug', 'DEBUGP'. There are also a myriad of 
> >ways of enabling these statements. 
> 
>  I propose to replace 'Pr_debug', 'Dev_debug', and 'DEBUGP' with 
> kernel markers. SystemTap is used for the output of the log.  
> 
>  I propose to make it to the function to output only specified 
> kernel markers as a log and the function in a word like LTTng of
> a simple version by using the framework and kernel markers of 
> ftrace if the log is output by using debugfs. 
> 
> Thank you,
> 

perhaps markers could be used to replace 'pr_debug', 'dev_debug', and 'DEBUGP'
but i have yet to see patches for that...

In a number of ways, these dynamic debug patches differ from markers:

-Markers have a pre-defined format string and arguments list, whereas debug
statements have a 'printk' format
-these patches are built around per-module debugging, which is largely implicit
whereas markers explicitly define sets of related markers.
-these patches allow 'flags' and levels to be set per-module, markers do not 
have this concept.
-these patches are tied into a procfs control file, whereas markers are
controlled by kernel modules which register handlers.

These two patchsets are really addressing different problems afaict.

thanks,

-Jason



--
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/