netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Set user

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: <20220403103933.787cc4de@rorschach.local.home>
Date:   Sun, 3 Apr 2022 10:39:33 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-trace-devel <linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: Set user_events to BROKEN

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 15:58:35 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> After being merged, user_events become more visible to a wider audience
> that have concerns with the current API. It is too late to fix this for
> this release, but instead of a full revert, just mark it as BROKEN (which
> prevents it from being selected in make config). Then we can work finding
> a better API. If that fails, then it will need to be completely reverted.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2059213643.196683.1648499088753.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

Linus,

I noticed that you pulled in this patch (slightly updated subject). I
had it part of my queue that was going thought my tests, which have
just finished. I was going to send you a pull request today.

Is it OK that I keep that patch? Otherwise, I need to pull it out and
rerun my tests without it.

I would have had this to you earlier but because of the merge
conflicts of my last pull request that this queue depended on, I based
all my new changes off of the merge commit you had made with my
previous pull request, and that contained bugs that would prevent my
tests from passing (as you saw with the one memory mapping issue).

I'll go ahead and send you the pull request that I have that contains
this patch as well, but feel free to reject it if you want me to redo
my queue without it.

-- Steve