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:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 17:36:54 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <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, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:45 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

What is the status of this set ?
Steven, did you apply it ?