* Re: [tip:perf/urgent] tracing: Prevent unloadable modules from using trace_bprintk()
2010-10-26 15:06 ` [tip:perf/urgent] tracing: Prevent unloadable modules from using trace_bprintk() Linus Torvalds
@ 2010-10-26 15:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-10-26 17:55 ` Ingo Molnar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2010-10-26 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: linux-kernel, mingo, hpa, rusty, fweisbec, srostedt, tglx, Li Zefan
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 08:06 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:21 AM, tip-bot for Steven Rostedt
> <srostedt@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > tracing: Prevent unloadable modules from using trace_bprintk()
>
> I still don't think this patch makes sense.
>
> Some of it is just totally insane. The CONFIG_MODVERSIONS check is
> just crazy. MODVERSIONS has nothing what-so-ever to do with the issue.
>
> Don't do this. It's total voodoo programming.
Yeah, I think Ingo pulled this by mistake (I asked him to do some pull
requests, and this was probably mixed in the real ones). I purposely
pulled it out of my other pull requests so we could debate it more.
The right answer is what Li Zefan said and that is to simply flush the
ring buffer on module removal if the module uses a trace_bprintk(). We
already do this for tracepoints.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [tip:perf/urgent] tracing: Prevent unloadable modules from using trace_bprintk()
2010-10-26 15:06 ` [tip:perf/urgent] tracing: Prevent unloadable modules from using trace_bprintk() Linus Torvalds
2010-10-26 15:21 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2010-10-26 17:55 ` Ingo Molnar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2010-10-26 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds
Cc: linux-kernel, mingo, hpa, rusty, fweisbec, rostedt, srostedt, tglx
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:21 AM, tip-bot for Steven Rostedt
> <srostedt@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > tracing: Prevent unloadable modules from using trace_bprintk()
>
> I still don't think this patch makes sense.
Yeah, i said that to Steve too in the discussion and essentially NAK-ed that patch -
it's just that i pulled the wrong branch. After seeing the commit mail i realized my
mistake and unpulled this one and pulled the right one ...
Thanks,
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread