linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] tracing: introducing eventfs

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, 21 Jul 2023 13:24:54 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "mhiramat@...nel.org" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Ching-lin Yu <chinglinyu@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        "oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev" <oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>,
        "er.ajay.kaher@...il.com" <er.ajay.kaher@...il.com>,
        "srivatsa@...il.mit.edu" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>,
        Tapas Kundu <tkundu@...are.com>,
        Vasavi Sirnapalli <vsirnapalli@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] tracing: introducing eventfs

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 17:17:24 +0000
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:


> > I also added a "is_freed" field that is part of the union and is set if
> > list elements have content. Note, since the union was criticized before, I
> > will state the entire purpose of doing this patch set is to save memory.
> > This structure will be used for every event file. What's the point of
> > getting rid of dentries if we are replacing it with something just as big?
> > Anyway, struct dentry does the exact same thing!  
> 
> Hey, don’t shoot me…

 ;-)

> 
> [And admittedly, I didn’t review the whole series after v1.]
> 
> I understand your position, but I think that at least is_freed should not
> be in the union, and you can just put it after umode_t.
> 
> Even for the matter of size, it should not matter in most architectures
> since umode_t is 16-bit, as natural alignment is at least 32-bits.

My new code I'm working on removes the umode_t and will require this then.
I rather have that part tested before adding other drastic changes.

-- Steve


> 
> [ And “bool" is clearer type for is_freed. ]
>