Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Em Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:05:45AM -0400, Eric Paris escreveu: > cc'ing Jeff Layton who has recently done a lot of getname work and I > want to make sure he sees this. Thanks, will try with his patchset applied, but see below... > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:56:59 -0700 > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo

Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 09:05 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > I think we need to just use panic instead of audit_panic. This early > at boot userspace would not have been able to tell the kernel that > audit_panic == panic nor would the box die later if userspace ask for > that functionality. Instead

Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Eric Paris
cc'ing Jeff Layton who has recently done a lot of getname work and I want to make sure he sees this. On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:56:59 -0700 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Al, Eric, > > Was this considered before? Acceptable? > > - Arnaldo > > --- > > Instead of an explicit hook only

Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Al, Eric, > > Was this considered before? Acceptable? > > - Arnaldo > > --- > > Instead of an explicit hook only for audit, use a tracepoint, so that > other users that need to know about filenames can hook there just like > audit. > > Based on an

Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo a...@ghostprotocols.net wrote: Al, Eric, Was this considered before? Acceptable? - Arnaldo --- Instead of an explicit hook only for audit, use a tracepoint, so that other users that need to know about filenames can hook there just like audit.

Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Eric Paris
cc'ing Jeff Layton who has recently done a lot of getname work and I want to make sure he sees this. On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:56:59 -0700 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo a...@ghostprotocols.net wrote: Al, Eric, Was this considered before? Acceptable? - Arnaldo --- Instead of an

Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 09:05 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: I think we need to just use panic instead of audit_panic. This early at boot userspace would not have been able to tell the kernel that audit_panic == panic nor would the box die later if userspace ask for that functionality. Instead the

Re: [PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-20 Thread Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Em Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:05:45AM -0400, Eric Paris escreveu: cc'ing Jeff Layton who has recently done a lot of getname work and I want to make sure he sees this. Thanks, will try with his patchset applied, but see below... On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:56:59 -0700 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo

[PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-19 Thread Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Al, Eric, Was this considered before? Acceptable? - Arnaldo --- Instead of an explicit hook only for audit, use a tracepoint, so that other users that need to know about filenames can hook there just like audit. Based on an earlier patch by Thomas Gleixner that added the tracepoint

[PATCH 1/1] audit: Use a tracepoint for getname

2012-09-19 Thread Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Al, Eric, Was this considered before? Acceptable? - Arnaldo --- Instead of an explicit hook only for audit, use a tracepoint, so that other users that need to know about filenames can hook there just like audit. Based on an earlier patch by Thomas Gleixner that added the tracepoint