linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] media: atomisp: Only use trace

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: <f9d33bcaa2eda680752205d3c3690cb6bc421730.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 19:36:19 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] media: atomisp: Only use trace_printk if allowed

On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 21:57 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:39:19 +0800
> Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org> wrote:
[]
> > Some other approaches/ideas:
> >  1. Filter all lkml messages that contain trace_printk. Already found
> > 1 instance, and I can easily reply to those with a semi-canned answer,
> > if I remember to check that filter regularly (not sustainable in the
> > long run...).
> 
> Added Joe Perches to the thread.
> 
> We can update checkpatch.pl to complain about a trace_printk() that it
> finds in the added code.

Why?

I don't see much value in a trace_printk checkpatch warning.
tracing is still dependent on CONFIG_TRACING otherwise
trace_printk is an if (0)

ELI5 please.