linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 01/12] tools lib traceevent: Convert remaining %p[fF] users to %p[sS]

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:   Tue, 10 Sep 2019 12:44:03 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tstoyanov@...are.com>,
        linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/12] tools lib traceevent: Convert remaining %p[fF]
 users to %p[sS]

On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 15:03 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 11:42:06 -0700
[]
> > btw:
> > 
> > Is there kernel version information available in
> > trace output files?
> 
> Not really. This is just a library that parses the trace event formats,
> there's not kernel versions passed in, but we do use variations in
> formats and such to determine what is supported.
> 
> > If so, it might be reasonable to change the tooling
> > there instead.
> > 
> 
> Actually, I think we could just look to see if "%pfw" is used and fall
> to that, otherwise consider it an older kernel and do it the original
> way.

Well, if you think that works, OK great.

But could that work?
How would an individual trace record know if
another trace record used %pfw?

Perhaps not reusing %pf, marking it reserved
for a period of years, and using another unused
prefix %p<type> like %pnfw may be simpler.