netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, tracing: unbreak lttng

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: <20180326200603.581eefb1@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:06:03 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <daniel@...earbox.net>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <peterz@...radead.org>, <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>,
        <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, tracing: unbreak lttng

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:25:32 -0700
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com> wrote:

> On 3/26/18 3:15 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:08:45 -0700
> > Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> for_each_kernel_tracepoint() is used by out-of-tree lttng module
> >> and therefore cannot be changed.
> >> Instead introduce kernel_tracepoint_find_by_name() to find
> >> tracepoint by name.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 9e9afbae6514 ("tracepoint: compute num_args at build time")
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>  
> >
> > I'm curious, why can't you rebase? The first patch was never acked.  
> 
> because I think it makes sense to keep such things in the commit log
> and in the separate diff, so next developer is aware of what kind of
> minefield the tracpoints are.

This is a bunch of BS. It's not a minefield, and you can change that
function. Mathieu is perfectly fine in modifying his code to deal with
it. He has several times in the past. But I did not agree with the
approach you were taking, that is why I'm against it. You are playing
the straw man with this.

> No wonder some maintainers refuse to add them.

Good grief. No! The reason maintainers refuse to add them is that
userspace can depend on them, and if that happens, it becomes an ABI.
Stop with this nonsense.

-- Steve