linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes v2 1/5] tracing/kprobes: Rename special variables syntax

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: <4ACA5F9C.7020001@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:05:32 -0400
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
	DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tracing/kprobes v2 1/5] tracing/kprobes: Rename special
 variables syntax

Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> - @global-symbol
>
>
> We could use global-symbol as is. Shadowing between global
> and local vars could be dealt with scope resolution:
>
> function:var
> file:var
> file:line:var
>
> And throw errors while submitting a shadowed var name, crying until
> the user defines the scope, only if needed of course (if there are
> no shadowing detected, we can submit a naked variable name).

Sure, via perf-probe, global/local symbols will be translated into
@address by debuginfo.
But without debuginfo, we still need @symbol syntax for accessing
global defined symbols.

>> - +|-Offs(ARG)
>
> You mean for arg numbers?
> So we would have +1 for argument 1?

Sorry for confusing you, it is for deref syntax.

> arg(1) looks more easy to remember and to understand, no?

I think arg(N) seems a bit different from other parts.
Perhaps, %argumentN is possible ? :-)

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com

--
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/