linux-kernel - Re: RFC: introduce struct ksymbol

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: <1240450306.21848.187.camel@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:31:46 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: introduce struct ksymbol

On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 18:09 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:55:33AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 20:21 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: 
> > > The current symbol printing APIs are awful; we should address them first
> > > (like the %pF patch does) IMHO.
> > I suggest just %pS<type>
> > With %pS, struct ksym is probably not all that
> > useful unless it's for something like a sscanf.
> > Today there are these symbol uses:
> > name, offset, size, modname
> > So perhaps %pS<foo> where foo is any combination of:
> > n name
> > o offset
> > s size
> > m modname
> > a all
> > and if not specified is a name lookup ("%pSn").
> It seems to me a rather good idea, it offers a good granularity
> about what has to displayed.

After implementing this %pS<foo> in a local tree,
I started to remove all print_symbol uses.

print_symbol is used in <foo>_warning_symbol calls.
These <foo>_warning_symbol uses seem dead.

Are they in use in some way or should they just
be removed?

see: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/5/142

$ grep -r --include=*.[chS] -nH -e warning_symbol *
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c:115:print_trace_warning_symbol(void *data, char *msg, unsigned long symbol)
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c:145:	.warning_symbol = print_trace_warning_symbol,
arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:17:save_stack_warning_symbol(void *data, char *msg, unsigned long symbol)
arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:57:	.warning_symbol = save_stack_warning_symbol,
arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c:64:	.warning_symbol = save_stack_warning_symbol,
arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c:18:static void backtrace_warning_symbol(void *data, char *msg,
arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c:45:	.warning_symbol = backtrace_warning_symbol,
arch/x86/include/asm/stacktrace.h:11:	void (*warning_symbol)(void *data, char *msg, unsigned long symbol);
kernel/trace/trace_sysprof.c:64:backtrace_warning_symbol(void *data, char *msg, unsigned long symbol)
kernel/trace/trace_sysprof.c:93:	.warning_symbol		= backtrace_warning_symbol,



--
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/