On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:35:21 -0700
> Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:18:07 -0700
>> > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This partially reverts commit 58eacfffc417 ("init, tracing: instrument
>> >> security and console initcall trace events") since security init calls
>> >> are about to no longer resemble regular init calls.
>> >
>> > I'm not against the change, but how much are they going to "no longer
>> > resemble regular init calls"?
>>
>> My take on "regular" init calls is that they're always run, link-time
>> ordered, etc. The changes proposed here will make it so not all
>> initialization are run depending on runtime configurations, ordering
>> will be flexible, etc.
>>
>
> Will it still be a good idea to have a tracepoint for those calls?
> Perhaps not an initcall tracepoint but some other kind?
I'm not opposed. It could be a follow-up patch, I assume?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
