[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C852B2A.2030103@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:55:54 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: disabling group leader perf_event
On 09/06/2010 06:47 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>> The actual language doesn't really matter.
> There are 3 basic categories:
>
> 1- Most (least abstract) specific code: a block of bytecode in the form
> of a simplified, executable, kernel-checked x86 machine code block -
> this is also the fastest form. [yes, this is actually possible.]
Do you then recompile it? x86 is quite unpleasant.
> 2- Least specific (most abstract) code: A subset/sideset of C - as it's
> the most kernel-developer-trustable/debuggable form.
>
> 3- Everything else little more than a dot on the spectrum between the
> first two points.
>
> I lean towards #2 - but #1 looks interesting too. #3 is distinctly
> uninteresting as it cannot be as fast as #1 and cannot be as convenient
> as #2.
Curious - how do you guarantee safety of #1 or even #2? Can you point
me to any research?
Everything I'm aware of is bytecode with explicit measures to prevent
forged pointers, but I admit I've spent no time on it. It's interesting
stuff, though.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists