linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] ftrace: Add 'function-fork' trace option (v2)

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: <20170417151857.7a85d91b@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:18:57 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ftrace: Add 'function-fork' trace option (v2)

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:44:26 +0900
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> This patchset add 'function-fork' option to function tracer which
> makes pid filter to be inherited like 'event-fork' does.  During the
> test, I found a bug of pid filter on an instance directory.  The patch
> 1 fixes it and maybe it should go to the stable tree.

Hmm, are the other patches dependent on it?

I think I may just push it separately to Linus now, but the other
patches will be on my devel branch which will not be abased off of this
fix. Will that break too much? I just cherry-picked a patch from my
urgent branch as it required to be on my devel branch and go to Linus.

Hmm, I may be able to make a separate branch with this. I have to see
how much it conflicts with my current development.

-- Steve