Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/33] Compile-time stack metadata validation

From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:27:17 -0300

Em Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:14:06AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> The fact that 'stacktool' already checks about assembly details like __ex_table[] 
> shows that my review feedback early iterations of this series, that the 
> 'stacktool' name is too specific, was correct.
> 
> We really need to rename it before it gets upstream and the situation gets worse. 
> __ex_table[] has obviously nothing to do with the 'stack layout' of binaries.
> 
> Another suitable name would be 'asmtool' or 'objtool'. For example the following 
> would naturally express what it does:
> 
>   objtool check kernel/built-in.o
> 
> the name expresses that the tool checks object files, independently of the 
> existing toolchain. Its primary purpose right now is the checking of stack layout 
> details, but the tool is not limited to that at all.

Removing 'tool' from the tool name would be nice too :-) Making it
easily googlable would be good too, lotsa people complain about 'perf'
being too vague, see for a quick laugher:

http://www.brendangregg.com/perf.html

``Searching for just "perf" finds sites on the police, petroleum, weed
control, and a T-shirt. This is not an official perf page, for either
perf_events or the T-shirt.''

The T-shirt: http://www.brendangregg.com/perf_events/omg-so-perf.jpg

Maybe we should ask Linus to come with some other nice, short,
searchable, funny name like 'git'?

'chob' as in 'check object'?

- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in
the body of a message to [email-masked]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html