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

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:27:17AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:

Em Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:14:06AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:

quoted

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

Yeah, 'tool' in the name is kind of silly, but the above type of
situation is why I prefer 'objtool' over 'obj'.

Though I have to admit I like the idea of making a t-shirt for it ;-)

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

'chob' as in 'check object'?

I think 'objtool' is searchable enough.  And I also like the fact that
its name at least gives you an idea of what it does (and eventually it
will do more than just "checking").

-- 
Josh