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: <20190916103755.4c19eda9@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:37:55 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.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 Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:41:59 +0300
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> > 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.  
> 
> %p[Ff]w does not exist (I grepped for it) in older kernels since v3.0. So
> kernel support for %p[fF] and %pfw are mutually exclusive. If you're ok
> with that, I could change the patch to check %pf isn't followed by 'w',
> in order to support %pf on older kernels.

I think that's what I suggested to do.

> 
> Although that still does not address using older tooling on newer kernels
> with support for %pfw.

That should be fine. I don't think it will crash those tools, they will
just give out wrong information, and if people complain, we can try to
get them to use the newer version of those tools ;-) (hopefully they
don't complain to Linus).

> 
> If you think that's an issue, I'll opt for another extension than %pfw,
> which I chose originally since it's memorable --- fw for fwnode (names,
> paths, and probably more in the future).
> 

I'm fine with the switch, as long as newer tools know how to handle it.

Make sure we also add a comment in the Linux kernel code that states
that older kernels use to have 'f' and 'F' and that new tools look for
'fw' to denote that this isn't an older kernel. This way, people will
hopefully not add another 'fX' pointer name.

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ