linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun field

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: <c62985530811180858u397fbac8h63f61b6d816abb46@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:58:59 +0100
From:	"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun field

2008/11/18 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>:
> How about a compromise, start off the patch series getting it working with
> task struct static array, and then finish the series with the dynamic
> array.
>
> This is my development model, because it lets me know where the bugs are
> better. If we find some strange bug, this can help pin point via a bisect
> if the bug is with the general code, or with the use of a dynamic array.
>
> Just my preference ;-)


Ooh. I first agreed with Ingo's arguments about the fact that distros
can enable it whithout worrying.
But as I read your message, I guess that would be better to start with
static arrays to better find the bugs,
state by state...

Ingo, what do you think?
--
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/