linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM Coresight: Enhance ETM tracing control

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: <20131205232638.GC28396@kroah.com>
Date:	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:26:38 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Adrien Vergé <adrienverge@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM Coresight: Enhance ETM tracing control

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 05:45:12PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 12/05/2013 03:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:50PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> [...]
> > And adding new features to code that is "dead" and should probably be
> > removed isn't a good idea, as I'm sure you can understand.
> 
> I would consider feature additions to be a sign of life. Maybe the
> architecture or user interface isn't ideal, but would you suggest just as
> quickly for media codec or cryptography hardware support be removed?

No, but I would ask that they be moved to use the same userspace api
for the same functionality, and not create custom ones just because
"they can".

> > How much work is it to incorportate ETM into the perf framework?  Don't
> > you think that this is a better thing to do overall, instead of having
> > duplicating interfaces for the same thing?
> 
> I'm not familiar enough with the ETM hardware (and the ETB, the buffer where
> the data is stored) and driver to say. One factor may be whether the perf
> events framework would need to be extended for complete functionality or could
> be used as-is.

How about moving this conversation to the proper mailing list for this
type of thing then?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/