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:   Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:13:24 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 40/41] stacktrace: Remove obsolete functions

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:33:20PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:34PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> > +struct stack_trace {
> > +	unsigned int nr_entries, max_entries;
> > +	unsigned long *entries;
> > +	int skip;	/* input argument: How many entries to skip */
> > +};
> 
> I was a bit surprised to see struct stack_trace still standing at the
> end of the patch set, but I guess 41 patches is enough :-)  Do we want
> to eventually remove the struct altogether?
> 
> I was also hoping to see the fragile "skipnr" go away in favor of
> something less dependent on compiler optimizations, but I'm not sure how
> feasible that would be.

It will die, but that only takes another nr_arch+1 patches.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists