linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

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: <20090612040558.GD8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:05:58 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:58:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Al Viro wrote:
> > 
> > So could you please clarify the situation?  If the ABI compatibility
> > requirements remain the same as they used to be, whether the userland code
> > is in-tree or not, I'm fine with the entire thing.  If they do not (and *ONLY*
> > in that case), I think we have a real problem.
> 
> I think the ABI requirements are the same.

OK, then.

> That said, I also suspect that as with oprofile itself, we'll end up 
> having expansions of the ABI that may well be CPU-specific. I also suspect 
> that there will probably be breakage early on just because things will 
> inevitably settle. 
> 
> And I think that for something like a profiling tool, such breakage is 
> much more acceptable than for the actual binaries you'd profile. It's not 
> like we're talking about breaking the boot or functionality of a machine, 
> as happens when we break the X server (which has happened).

Sure.
--
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/