GSoC 2019: Efficient syscall tracing for strace

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 07:33:24AM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 11:53:34PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:15:50PM +0200, Paul Chaignon wrote:
[...]
> > > Tentative schedule:
> > > ==============
> > > Week 1: Add more tests for seccomp-bpf
> > > Week 2: Add support and tests for ARM
> > > Week 3: Prepare patchset for seccomp-bpf & Work on review rounds for
> > >   seccomp-bpf
> > > Week 4: Work on review rounds for seccomp-bpf
> > > Week 5: Improve cBPF program and run evaluations
> > > 28/06 - Phase 1 deadline - Result: seccomp-bpf merged or in good state
> > > Week 6: Rebase alt-backends
> > > Week 7: Rebase alt-backends
> > > Week 8: Prepare RFC patchset for alt-backends
> > > Week 9: Develop PoC of tracepoint/BPF backend
> > > 26/07 - Phase 2 deadline - Result: alt-backends posted on mailing list
> > > Week 10: Develop PoC of tracepoint/BPF backend
> > > Week 11: Prepare patchset for alt-backends & Work on review rounds
> > > Week 12: Final week to work on review rounds if necessary
> > > 19/08 - Final deadline - Result: alt-backends merged or in good state +
> > >   RFC for tracepoint/BPF backend
> > 
> > It's not quite clear from this schedule whether do you plan to work
> > on the gdbserver backend as well.
> 
> I did not plan to work on the gdbserver backend itself.  I'll update the
> schedule for clarity.

OK

> I would prefer to target a smaller result for the GSoC and be sure to
> finish, rather than end up with an abandoned patch.

Fair enough.

> Do you think I
> overestimate the required work for the preparational backend patchset and
> seccomp-bpf?

No, it doesn't look like an outright overestimation.


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20190409/206cad11/attachment.bin>