On Wednesday 18 April 2012 12:15:51 Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:19:31PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > + if (!abbrev(tcp) || info.lo_encrypt_type != LO_CRYPT_NONE) {
> > + string_quote((void *) info.lo_encrypt_key, s, 0,
LO_KEY_SIZE);
> > + tprintf(", encrypt_key=%s", s);
> > + }
>
> [...]
>
> > + if (!abbrev(tcp) || info64.lo_encrypt_type != LO_CRYPT_NONE) {
> > + string_quote((void *) info64.lo_crypt_name, s, -1,
LO_NAME_SIZE);
> > + tprintf(", crypt_name=%s", s);
> > + string_quote((void *) info64.lo_encrypt_key, s, 0,
LO_KEY_SIZE);
> > + tprintf(", encrypt_key=%s", s);
> > + }
>
> I'm not sure the LO_CRYPT_NONE case worth decoding even in verbose mode.
> If the kernel ignores this data, what kind of help for debugging could
> it be?as a general rule, in verbose mode, i'd really like to see everything the kernel sees. makes it easier to diagnose cases when things go wrong. i agree that in general, the kernel shouldn't care about these fields when encryption is disable. but consider the case where the user code overflows a member of their struct. in verbose mode, it'd be easier to pick out since you see the entire thing vs pieces. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better than sec? Nothing is better than sec when it comes to monitoring Big Data applications. Try Boundary one-second resolution app monitoring today. Free. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
