linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 3/6] tracing: Add snapshot refcount

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 05:25:32 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
 kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 3/6] tracing: Add snapshot refcount

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:32:45 +0000
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com> wrote:

> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > 
> >    kernel/trace/trace.c: In function 'tracing_set_tracer':
> >    kernel/trace/trace.c:6644:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'tracing_disarm_snapshot_locked'; did you mean 'tracing_disarm_snapshot'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >     6644 |                 tracing_disarm_snapshot_locked(tr);
> >          |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >          |                 tracing_disarm_snapshot  
> > >> kernel/trace/trace.c:6648:23: error: implicit declaration of function 'tracing_arm_snapshot_locked'; did you mean 'tracing_arm_snapshot'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]  
> >     6648 |                 ret = tracing_arm_snapshot_locked(tr);
> >          |                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >          |                       tracing_arm_snapshot
> >    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors  
> 
> Right, two tracers (hwlat and osnoise) select _only_ MAX_TRACE and not
> TRACER_SNAPSHOT.
> 
> However, AFAICT, they will not call any of the swapping functions (they don't
> set use_max_tr). So I suppose arm/disarm can be ommited in that case.

Yeah, if you can test with the various configs enabled and disabled to
make sure that it still builds properly, then that should be good.

I should make sure that my own ktest config that I use to run tests
checks these variations too.

-- Steve