linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] [PATCH 1/5] events: Add EVENT

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: <20101117181222.GB1093@Krystal>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:12:22 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] [PATCH 1/5] events: Add EVENT_FS the event
	filesystem

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:46 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Are these events now going to be labeled as stable?  Is every tracepoint
> > > we have, much have the same data?  Linus specifically said at Kernel
> > > Summit that he wants absolutely NO modules to have a stable tracepoint.
> > 
> > I'd like to bring up the point of KVM tracepoints here. KVM can be configured as
> > a module, and may clearly contain tracepoints that we'd like to be stable.
> > 
> > My thought is that what we really want to enforce is "no stable tracepoints in
> > drivers" rather than in "modules", but I might be wrong.
> > 
> > Thoughts ?
> 
> I still say no to stable tracepoints in modules. Once you open that
> door, everyone will have it.
> 
> But, that doesn't mean that a raw traepoint can't be stable. If the
> maintainer of that tracepoint states it is stable, then by all means,
> let tools use it.

I'd really like to hear Avi's thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.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/