linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] tracing/user_events: Introduce multi-format events

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, 26 Jan 2024 15:04:45 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] tracing/user_events: Introduce multi-format events

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:10:07 -0800
Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > OK, so the each different event has suffixed name. But this will
> > introduce non C-variable name.
> > 
> > Steve, do you think your library can handle these symbols? It will
> > be something like "event:[1]" as the event name.
> > Personally I like "event.1" style. (of course we need to ensure the
> > user given event name is NOT including such suffix numbers)
> >   
> 
> Just to clarify around events including a suffix number. This is why
> multi-events use "user_events_multi" system name and the single-events
> using just "user_events".
> 
> Even if a user program did include a suffix, the suffix would still get
> appended. An example is "test" vs "test:[0]" using multi-format would
> result in two tracepoints ("test:[0]" and "test:[0]:[1]" respectively
> (assuming these are the first multi-events on the system).
> 
> I'm with you, we really don't want any spoofing or squatting possible.
> By using different system names and always appending the suffix I
> believe covers this.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing Steven's thoughts on this as well.

I'm leaning towards Masami's suggestion to use dots, as that won't conflict
with special characters from bash, as '[' and ']' do.

-- Steve