linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] trace: Add x86 irq vector entry/exit tracepoints

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: <4E14FE1A.9000003@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:30:18 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>,
	Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] trace: Add x86 irq vector entry/exit tracepoints

On 07/06/2011 05:25 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> I'm suggesting two things:
> 
> 1) If every arch implement a tracepoint for a generic event, then move the tracepoint
> to the generic code. I believe that part is not very controversial.
> 

Agreed -- as long as it doesn't mean breaking the flow for specific arches.

> 2) If every arch implement a common event that is not implemented in core code (I believe
> it was the case for reschedule_interrupt few times ago but changed lately) then try
> to have a common tracepoint for every archs if possible. So that we don't have
> thousand names for the same event, or different parameters name when those parameters and the
> event semantic are exactly the same amongst every architecture.

Agreed as well.

> Trace events are irresponsible anyway because they involve that "ABI not really stable but tools
> rely on it so...well...)". I'm not sure the above points make the situation worse though. Probably
> the cases that fit in 2) need to be carefully checked to ensure they really fit in 2).

Yes, it was much more of a generic concern.  However, it is very
important that people have a correct idea about what the stability of
something like tracepoint is -- or we'll end up in a situation where we
can never change the kernel because anything is suddenly "user space
visible."

	-hpa
--
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/