linux-kernel - Re: [tracing] ring

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 17 May 2009 20:39:42 -0400
From:	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tracing] ring_buffer question

On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 17:08 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:

> Is there any reason you can think of why we don't just generalize
> kernel/trace/ring_buffer into kernel/ring_buffer, remove the static
> per_cpu buffer allocation and have this available for non-tracing?

Ignore the latter point - I realize that I can use ring_buffer_alloc,
etc. quite happily. I am doing that now in my smi_detector rewrite. But
I still think the RB is a little too tracing specific - so, perhaps we
can move it out of kernel/trace. I'll write up something once I've
figured out this stuff to go along with the excellent trace docs since
the generic ring buffer implementation is really quite sexy stuff.

[thinking out loud] Does the global disable stuff also disable other
non-tracing ring buffers?

Jon.

--
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/