linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter

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: <1257741072.3451.27.camel@falcon.domain.org>
Date:	Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:31:12 +0800
From:	Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>,
	Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford@...glemail.com>,
	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Adam Nemet <anemet@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Patrik Kluba <kpajko79@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 08/11] tracing: not trace mips_timecounter_init()
 in MIPS

Hi,

On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 22:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
[...]
> > > 
> > > But I would rather see a __mips_notrace on these two core functions.
> > 
> > What about this: __arch_notrace? If the arch need this, define it,
> > otherwise, ignore it! if only graph tracer need it, define it in "#ifdef
> > CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER ... #endif".
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that archs may want to disable tracing on different
> places.
> For example mips wants to disable tracing in timecounter_read_delta,
> but another arch may want to disable tracing somewhere else.
> 
> We'll then have several unrelated __arch_notrace. One that is relevant
> for mips, another that is relevant for arch_foo, but all of them will
> apply for all arch that have defined a __arch_notrace.
> 
> It's true that __mips_notrace is not very elegant as it looks like
> a specific arch annotation intruder.
> 
>
> But at least that gives us a per arch filter granularity.
> 
> If only static ftrace could disappear, we could keep only dynamic
> ftrace and we would then be able to filter dynamically.
> But I'm not sure it's a good idea for archs integration.
> 

I think if we use something like __mips_notrace here, we may get lots of
__ARCH_notraces here too, 'Cause some other platforms(at least, as I
know, Microblaze will do it too) may also need to add one here, it will
become:

__mips_notrace __ARCH1_notrace __ARCH2_notrace .... foo() {...}

A little ugly ;)

and If a new platform need it's __ARCH_notrace, they need to touch the
common part of ftrace, more side-effects!

but with __arch_notrace, the archs only need to touch it's own part,
Although there is a side-effect as you mentioned above ;)

So, what should we do?

Regards,
	Wu Zhangjin

--
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/