linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ftrace: Use text

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:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 09:42:28 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ftrace: Use text_poke()

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:22:37 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 06:10:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > But still, we are going from 120 to 660 IPIs for every CPU. Not saying
> > it's a problem, but something that we should note. Someone (those that
> > don't like kernel interference) may complain.  
> 
> It is machine wide function tracing, interference is going to happen..
> :-)
> 
> Anyway, we can grow the batch size if sufficient benefit can be shown to
> exist.

Yeah, I was thinking that we just go with these patches and then fix
the IPI issue when someone starts complaining ;-)

Anyway, is this series ready to go? I can pull them in (I guess I
should get an ack from Thomas or Ingo as they are x86 specific). I'm
currently working on code that affects the same code paths as this
patch, and would like to build my changes on top of this, instead of
monkeying around with major conflicts.

-- Steve