Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:07:55 -0600
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>,
	Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/33] Compile-time stack metadata validation

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:27:17AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:14:06AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > The fact that 'stacktool' already checks about assembly details like __ex_table[] 
> > shows that my review feedback early iterations of this series, that the 
> > 'stacktool' name is too specific, was correct.
> > 
> > We really need to rename it before it gets upstream and the situation gets worse. 
> > __ex_table[] has obviously nothing to do with the 'stack layout' of binaries.
> > 
> > Another suitable name would be 'asmtool' or 'objtool'. For example the following 
> > would naturally express what it does:
> > 
> >   objtool check kernel/built-in.o
> > 
> > the name expresses that the tool checks object files, independently of the 
> > existing toolchain. Its primary purpose right now is the checking of stack layout 
> > details, but the tool is not limited to that at all.
> 
> Removing 'tool' from the tool name would be nice too :-) Making it
> easily googlable would be good too, lotsa people complain about 'perf'
> being too vague, see for a quick laugher:
> 
> http://www.brendangregg.com/perf.html
> 
> ``Searching for just "perf" finds sites on the police, petroleum, weed
> control, and a T-shirt. This is not an official perf page, for either
> perf_events or the T-shirt.''
> 
> The T-shirt: http://www.brendangregg.com/perf_events/omg-so-perf.jpg

Yeah, 'tool' in the name is kind of silly, but the above type of
situation is why I prefer 'objtool' over 'obj'.

Though I have to admit I like the idea of making a t-shirt for it ;-)

> Maybe we should ask Linus to come with some other nice, short,
> searchable, funny name like 'git'?
> 
> 'chob' as in 'check object'?

I think 'objtool' is searchable enough.  And I also like the fact that
its name at least gives you an idea of what it does (and eventually it
will do more than just "checking").

-- 
Josh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists