* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:59 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
> > include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 4 +-
> > include/linux/perf_event.h | 10 +++++---
> > kernel/perf_event.c | 49
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > kernel/seccomp.c | 8 ++++++
> > kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++-----
> > 5 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> I strongly oppose to the perf core being mixed with any sekurity voodoo
> (or any other active role for that matter).
I'd object to invisible side-effects as well, and vehemently so. But note how
intelligently it's used here: it's explicit in the code, it's used explicitly
in kernel/seccomp.c and the event generation place in
kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c.
So this is a really flexible solution IMO and does not extend events with some
invisible 'active' role. It extends the *call site* with an open-coded active
role - which active role btw. already pre-existed.
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
