linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip 3/3] Add get

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: <4B01E428.9070203@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:45:44 -0500
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
	DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 3/3] Add get_signal tracepoint

Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Hmm, actually, trace_signal_send() doesn't record the return value.
>
> Is that because it's called before the action really happens?
> Is it important that it be called beforehand?  If it's called
> afterwards, it's easy to pass the return value.

I'm not so sure why signal sending events was put beforehand.
However, I assume that original intent might be recording
the *timing* of all signal generation (including SIGSTOP/CONT).

>> So, what about trace_signal_overflow() for RT-signals and
>> trace_signal_loss_info() for non-RT?
>
> Really you can distinguish those just by looking at sig and info, so
> perhaps a single tracepoint is enough.

Ah, right :-)

>  I guess it really depends on what
> filtering you would want and how inconvenient it is to have to apply that
> filtering.  Having these two distinct tracepoints lets you trivially trace
> only "silent information loss" without seeing the events where userland
> gets full information (if applications are paying attention).
>
> If you want to have a full suite of tracepoints where each one covers one
> unambiguous corner of the semantics, then there are more than these just
> for sending.  e.g. see below.

As Ingo said, I think this kind of finegrained events are optional.
I don't think we really need these events soon. IMHO, just adding
signal-loss event is enough at the first step.

But anyway, thank you so much for suggesting those tracepoints!

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/