linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints have data?passed to tracepoint callbacks

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: <1273245338.22438.168.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 07 May 2010 11:15:38 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9 - v2][RFC] tracing: Let tracepoints have
 data?passed to tracepoint callbacks

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 11:08 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> > > Can you show me where the C standard says it is safe to do so ?
> > 
> > No, but it seems safe in the kernel ;-)
> 
> The use of "seems" here does not give me a warm feeling of safety. ;)

Right, which is why I added the below.

> 
> > 
> > But that said. There is another option that will conform to this, and
> > that is to add flags to registering tracepoints. I already wrote a patch
> > for this in trying to do some other work (that I threw away).
> > 
> > 
> > So here's the proposal.
> > 
> > Change struct tracepoint_func to...
> > 
> > struct tracepoint_func {
> > 	void *func;
> > 	void *data;
> > 	unsigned int flags;
> > };
> > 
> > 
> > The flags is set when registered. If a function is registered with data,
> > then the flags field will be set. Then the calling of the function can
> > be:
> > 
> > 	if ((it_func_ptr)->flags & TP_FL_DATA)
> > 		((void(*)(proto, void *))(it_func)(args, __data);
> > 	else
> > 		((void(*)(proto))(it_func)(args);
> > 
> > This would comply with the C standard.
> 
> This would also add a branch on the tracing fast path, which I would like to
> avoid. Why can't we simply change all prototypes to take an extra void *__data
> parameter instead ?

I'm fine with making the data parameter mandatory with all tracers. Thus
the call back must require it. I would then move the data parameter from
the end to the beginning.

So a tracepoint with proto, will have a callback:

	void callback(void *data, proto);

I'm fine with forcing all callbacks to include a data parameter if you
are. This would also make the changes simpler.

-- Steve


--
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/