[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211108173053.4b37a1b8@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:30:53 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] user_events: Add minimal support for
trace_event into ftrace
On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:09:45 -0800
Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> It seems like both histograms and filter both reference field flags to
> determine how to get the data.
>
> How would you feel about another FILTER_* flag on fields, like:
> FILTER_DYN_STRING_SAFE
> FILTER_PTR_STRING_SAFE
You mean "UNSAFE" ?
>
> user_events when parsing would instead of leaving FILTER_OTHER for
> __data_loc / __rel_loc switch to the above.
>
> The predicate filter method would then switch based on those types to
> safer versions.
>
> That way other parts could take advantage of this if needed beyond
> user_events.
>
> If this is addressed at the filter/histogram level, would then the write
> callsites still check bounds per-write? Or maybe only care about the
> undersized data cases?
I'd have to look at the implementation of this. There's too many variables
running around in my head right now.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists