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: <1251196359.7538.1133.camel@twins>
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:32:39 +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 12:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> For a reasonable large subsystem/driver i can very well imagine this 
> to happen: why should the subsystem add _another_ layer of callbacks 
> if it can reuse the generic tracepoint code and register itself to 
> those?

Then that subsystem would be non functioning when the kernel is build
without tracepoints.

Nothing should rely on tracepoint being present, they are and should
remain a debug feature, not a core hook thing.

Do you really wish to burden every tracepoint user with the extra logic
needed to deal with modules?


--
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/