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: <20190321091356.38a6988d@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:13:56 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        diamon-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        lttng-dev <lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [diamon-discuss] [RELEASE] LTTng-modules 2.9.11, 2.10.8,
 2.11.0-rc2 (Linux kernel tracer)

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:41:22 -0400
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:

> Also does it also make sense for lttng ring buffer to use the ftrace code for
> ring buffer, or make the ftrace ring buffer better and have lttng use it? Or
> is the lttng ring buffer design too radically different?

We tried in the past and never actually got something that we both
could agree on. Now I believe the user space tools depend on the way
each one is, so to change one will break the tools that read it.

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ