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  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:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:38:26 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:     Steven Rostedt <>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <>,
        Joel Fernandes <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Tom Zanussi <>,
        Namhyung Kim <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Boqun Feng <>,
        fweisbec <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,
        kbuild test robot <>,
        baohong liu <>,
        vedang patel <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks executing
 with preempt on

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:47:47AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <> wrote:
> > The general approach and the implementation look fine, except for
> > one small detail: I would be tempted to explicitly disable preemption
> > around the call to the tracepoint callback for the rcuidle variant,
> > unless we plan to audit every tracer right away to remove any assumption
> > that preemption is disabled in the callback implementation.
> I'm thinking that we do that audit. There shouldn't be many instances
> of it. I like the idea that a tracepoint callback gets called with
> preemption enabled.

Are you really sure you want to increase your state space that much?

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists