linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 09/10] tracing: Use the hashlist for graph function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100130211942.GH5675@nowhere>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:19:43 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/10] tracing: Use the hashlist for graph function

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:50:48PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > When we set a filter to start tracing from a given function in
> > the function graph tracer, the filter is stored in a linear array.
> > 
> > It doesn't scale very well, we even limited the number of such
> > functions to 32.
> > 
> > Now that we have a hashlist of functions, lets put a field inside
> > each function node so that we can check if a function is one of
> > these filters using the hashlist, not a linear array.
> 
> The linear array @ftrace_graph_funcs is still used in this patch.
> we still limit the number of such functions to 32?
> 
> [...]



Heh, that's right. I should probably make it a list. The array
is only used when we touch set_graph_function file.



> >  #define FTRACE_GRAPH_MAX_FUNCS		32
> >  extern int ftrace_graph_count;
> >  extern unsigned long ftrace_graph_funcs[FTRACE_GRAPH_MAX_FUNCS];
> > -
> > -static inline int ftrace_graph_addr(unsigned long addr)
> > -{
> > -	int i;
> > -
> > -	if (!ftrace_graph_count)
> > -		return 1;
> 
> Here return 1.
> 
> [...]
> > +static inline int ftrace_graph_addr(unsigned long addr)
> > +{
> > +	struct func_node *rec;
> > +	struct func_hlist *hlist;
> > +
> > +	if (!ftrace_graph_count)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> 
> But in this patch, return 0 here, the behave will be changed.


Yeah, I've inverted the check from the tracing callback.

It seems to me that:

	if (ftrace_graph_addr(addr))

more logically means that we trace this addr. Making it
a boolean would make the things more clear perhaps?

--
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/