netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] introduce two new tracepoints for udp

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: <20190530.142626.1471109804622294121.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 14:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        laoar.shao@...il.com, songliubraving@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] introduce two new tracepoints for udp

From: Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 21:06:54 +0800

> This series introduces two new tracepoints trace_udp_send and
> trace_udp_queue_rcv, and removes redundant new line from
> tcp_event_sk_skb.

Why?

Is it faster than using kprobes?

Is it more reliable?

Are the events _so_ useful that they warrant a tracepoint and thus
creating a semi-stable interface for tracing and introspection via
ebpf and similar technologies?

Again, you have to say why in your log message(s).