On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 04:19:00PM -0700, Beau Belgrave wrote: > To help keep track of what is required to remove the broken status from > user_events I am starting this thread. I would like to use this thread > to provide status on the work that has been done so far and to have a > discussion about when the broken status can be removed. > > Feedback threads from 5.18 version of user_events: > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/2059213643.196683.1648499088753.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > 2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/1651771383.54437.1652370439159.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > All the feedback has been addressed in the patchsets 1 and 2 (see below). > Here are the details: > > 1. Use bits vs bytes in event enabled memory mappings. > Fixed in patchset 1. > > 2. Pack ABI structures where size is used. > Fixed in patchset 1. > > 3. Don't trust user strings for string formatting. > Fixed in patchset 1. > > 4. Move to refcount APIs vs atomic for tracking references. > Fixed in patchset 1. > > 5. Ensure event_mutex is held during registration. > Fixed in patchset 2. > > With these, I believe I have addressed all issues to remove the > "broken status". > > Here is the list of additional feedback (and status) that I don't believe > should have a bearing on removing the "broken status": > > 1. Kernel vs user tracers in ABI. > This is not done, the plan is to build a libtracepoint library that allows > working with both kernel and user tracers in user programs. Steven is > working on this at the moment. I don't believe this is required to remove > the broken status, but it will help prove the ABI by having it. > > No patchset yet. > > 2. Container/namespace isolation of events. > user_events utilizes tracefs for user facing files in the ABI. I've created > an RFC patchset showing how if tracefs offered an isolated directory > structure per-namespace the user_events ABI is unaffected. This is true for > other ABIs that tracefs hosts, if they would like to integrate. I don't > believe this is required to remove the broken status, however, it's useful > to have to see how the ABI is unaffected while we work toward enabling > isolation within tracing. > > See patchset 3. > > Patchsets: > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220425184631.2068-1-beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > 2. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220328223225.1992-1-beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > 3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220707215828.2021-1-beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Thanks, > -Beau Steven had feedback on patchset 1 here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220726180115.69320865@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I've updated patchset 1 and 3 to address this feedback. Updated patchsets: 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220728233309.1896-1-beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ 3. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220728235241.2249-1-beaub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks, -Beau
|