Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40603-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:04:45 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] tracing/user_events: Introduce multi-format events
Message-ID: <20240126150445.71c5d426@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20240126191007.GA456-beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
References: <20240123220844.928-1-beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
	<20240123220844.928-3-beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
	<20240127000104.7c98b34d295747ab1b084bd2@kernel.org>
	<20240126191007.GA456-beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:10:07 -0800
Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > OK, so the each different event has suffixed name. But this will
> > introduce non C-variable name.
> > 
> > Steve, do you think your library can handle these symbols? It will
> > be something like "event:[1]" as the event name.
> > Personally I like "event.1" style. (of course we need to ensure the
> > user given event name is NOT including such suffix numbers)
> >   
> 
> Just to clarify around events including a suffix number. This is why
> multi-events use "user_events_multi" system name and the single-events
> using just "user_events".
> 
> Even if a user program did include a suffix, the suffix would still get
> appended. An example is "test" vs "test:[0]" using multi-format would
> result in two tracepoints ("test:[0]" and "test:[0]:[1]" respectively
> (assuming these are the first multi-events on the system).
> 
> I'm with you, we really don't want any spoofing or squatting possible.
> By using different system names and always appending the suffix I
> believe covers this.
> 
> Looking forward to hearing Steven's thoughts on this as well.

I'm leaning towards Masami's suggestion to use dots, as that won't conflict
with special characters from bash, as '[' and ']' do.

-- Steve