linux-kernel - Re: KGTP (Linux Kernel debugger and tracer) 20120424 release(doc update)[1/3]code

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]

Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:49:19 -0700
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KGTP (Linux Kernel debugger and tracer) 20120424 release(doc update)[1/3]code

Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com> writes:

Could you please split it down further. a 9kLOC patch is pretty daunting.

>From a quick glance over some focus on simplication would be good: no
own allocators (kernel has enough), no own types (that would remove
asm), remove optional facilities like the private ring buffer. Some
obsolete code like using semaphores vs mutexes. The variable list looks
overcomplicated, just use an array? Generally too many macros I would
say, try using inlines or removing them.  

Do you have any rarely used optional features that could be left out a
version 1? If yes do that.  I'm sure with some effort the 9kLOC could be
much less. A patch half the size would be much easier to merge.

There are some things that checkpatch will likely warn about.

It would be good if you could describe the use case a bit better:
this is for the kernel only or also user applications?

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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/