linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] LTTng upstreaming next steps

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]

Message-ID: <20250715111346.57587ec9@batman.local.home>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:13:46 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Steven Rostedt
 <rostedt@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)"
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar
 <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] LTTng upstreaming next steps

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:24:59 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> Either LTTng can use the same infrastructure as perf and ftrace, meaning it
> requires EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() on those interfaces, or it gets pulled in as
> is, so that it can incrementally start to share the code.

I believe that if we allowed LTTng to have access to the perf and
ftrace infrastructure, it would encourage more collaboration. It would
force Mathieu into working to get perf and ftrace and LTTng working
under one infrastructure so that it could finally get rid of its out of
tree module. Whereas, if we pulled it in as-is, there wouldn't be
really any incentive for it to change.

Now the question is, how do we allow LTTng's out of tree module to have
access to the internal infrastructure without breaking the
"EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is only for in-tree modules" rule?

-- Steve