linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001260816000.3574@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:28:15 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>
cc:	Renzo Davoli <renzo@...unibo.it>, Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>, tytso@....edu,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: add utrace tree

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> 
> 1. If you'd merge utrace + ptrace-on-utrace, but never anything else
>    which uses the utrace API, wouldn't it still be an improvement?

I already said earlier that I'd be perfectly happy to merge utrace code, 
as long as it was clear that I'm not merging a platform for crazy work. 
IOW, the end result might be merging 99% of the code, but I want to set 
peoples _expectations_ right. I'm not at all interested in merging stuff 
that has various exported helper functions for people doing random things, 
but I could happily merge stuff that cleans up internal implementation.

> 2. A well defined utrace API makes debugging code more hackable, thus more
>    likely that someone might come up with a brilliant killer debug
>    feature in the future.

I don't really agree. 

Clean code makes things easier to improve, and maybe utrace cleans thigns 
up. But defining new API's makes me very worried, and quite frankly, the 
last thing I ever want to see is a new interface that out-of-tree modules 
starr using for random hacking.

So I'd be much happier without the whole utrace kernel interface and 
callbacks, and very much would want to avoid the whole issue of plugins. 
I'd like to see ptrace improvements - not something else.

In other words, I'd much much rather keep the utrace thing _internal_ to 
ptrace. If people have performance complaints about ptrace, let's look at 
fixing those _as_such_, rather than look at new modules etc.

> BTW, the ptrace improvements discussed elsewhere in this thread
> (like using an fd intead of signals/wait) are orthogonal
> to utrace, no?  IMHO it's a seperate discussion.

Largely, yes. Tied together to some degree of course, but the whole issue 
of code cleanup can be seen as a reasonably independent first step (while 
moving to a fd-based interface should probably not be done without some 
cleanup first, so they _are_ somewhat tied together).

		Linus
--
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/