From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Sachin Sant <sachinp@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Have trace_marker writes be just half of TRACE_SEQ_SIZE
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:48:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c3051fd1-2aaa-485f-b23d-d98c3579e166@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240304213750.1baef01d@gandalf.local.home>
On 2024-03-04 21:37, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 21:35:38 -0500
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
>>> And it's not for debugging, it's for validation of assumptions
>>> made about an upper bound limit defined for a compile-time
>>> check, so as the code evolves issues are caught early.
>>
>> validating is debugging.
>
> Did Linus put you up to this? To test me to see if I'm learning how to say "No" ;-)
No, he did not. I genuinely think that validating size limits like
this either at compile time or, when they can vary at runtime like
in this case, with a dynamic check, decreases the cognitive
load on the reviewers. We can then assume that whatever limit
was put in place is actually enforced and not just wishful
thinking.
If the "header" size upper bound is not validated at runtime, there
is not much point in adding the BUILD_BUG_ON() based on that value
in the first place, and you should then just add a runtime check that
you don't overflow the output buffer before writing the output to it.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-05 2:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-05 0:27 [PATCH] tracing: Have trace_marker writes be just half of TRACE_SEQ_SIZE Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 0:43 ` Randy Dunlap
2024-03-05 0:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 1:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-03-05 1:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 1:36 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-03-05 1:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 1:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 1:42 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-03-05 1:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 2:18 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-03-05 2:35 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 2:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2024-03-05 2:48 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2024-03-05 3:07 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c3051fd1-2aaa-485f-b23d-d98c3579e166@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sachinp@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox