On 11-01-18 06:15 AM, Nils Carlson wrote:
Hi,
Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:13 PM, David Goulet
<[email protected]> wrote:
I'm submitting a RFC about a "new daemon model" for UST.
This is the *first* draft... so a lot of feedback will be appreciated
for
improvements and ideas!
At first glance I'm concerned about a root ustd daemon. One of the
things I like about LTTng UST is that it's low on administration
overhead and configuration. Putting a central service in place that
mediates access introduces a level of complexity that makes it harder
for unprivileged users who want to quickly trace something in an app
they are running or developing.
The central daemon is already in place. I assume your talking about
using the usttrace command?
Perhaps offer a two-level approach:
1. You can directly trace processes that you have permissions for. No
root and no system-wide daemon needed.
2. You can set up a system-wide daemon and get all the access control,
tracing over the network, etc benefits.
I think this is a good goal... ad-hoc is important for debugging.
The last use case I put in the RFC was for "ad-hoc" tracing. No
privilege needed, only the apps and a consumer so tracing can go on.
But you are right, UST has to be able to trace without any root
privileges. I will make that clearer in the next version of the document.
/Nils
I will reread the RFC in more detail later in case I've missed the
answers to this.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
--
David Goulet
LTTng project, DORSAL Lab.
PGP/GPG : 1024D/16BD8563
BE3C 672B 9331 9796 291A 14C6 4AF7 C14B 16BD 8563
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
