linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module

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: <1251191546.7538.1118.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:12:26 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload

On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:05 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > Ah, my bad, I was thikning tracepoint_probe_register() was the 
> > thing that registered the tracepoint itself, not the callback.
> > 
> > Ok, then what's the problem?, don't do modules that consume their 
> > own tracepoints, seems simple enough.
> 
> is this a reasonable restriction? I dont see any reason why the act 
> of defining and providing a tracepoint should be exclusive of the 
> ability to make use of it.

It doesn't make sense to me, you don't need your own tracepoints because
you generate the events yourself, you already have them.

Furthermore, I much prefer this over spreading module gunk all over
tracepoint users.
--
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/