linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] exit: move and extend sched_process

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: <CAEf4BzagjTyA+OWzWatrHvHu0wpzWBDJT=-qh+NWYTNAtjRWxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:01:59 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, mhocko@...nel.org, 
	oleg@...hat.com, brauner@...nel.org, glider@...gle.com, mhiramat@...nel.org, 
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] exit: move and extend sched_process_exit() tracepoint

On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 8:12 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:54:22 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This feels really fragile, could you please at least add a comment
> > > that points out that this is basically an extension of
> > > sched_process_template, and that it should remain a subset of it,
> > > or something to that end?
> >
> > Is there any dependency on this?
> >
> > I don't know of any other dependency to why this was a template other than
> > to save memory.
>
> Uhm, to state the obvious: to not replicate the same definitions over
> and over again three times times, for 3 scheduler tracepoints that
> share the record format?
>
> Removing just a single sched_process_template use bloats the source and
> adds in potential fragility:
>
>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> So my request is to please at least add a comment that points the
> reader to the shared record format between sched_process_exit and the
> other two tracepoints.

Sounds good, no problem. I'll send a follow up patch which Andrew can
fold, if he prefers.

>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo