| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:05:07 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter_open when supported * Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> wrote: > If the port does not support HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS, then they can't > support the perf_counter_open syscall either. Rather than forcing > everyone to add an ignore (or suffer the warning until they get > around to implementing support), only whine about the syscall when > applicable. No, this patch is wrong - it's really easy to add support: just hook up the syscall. This should happen for every architecture really, so the warning is correct and it should not be patched out. PMU support is not required to get perfcounters support: if an architecture hooks up the syscall it will get generic software counters and the tools will work as well. Profiling falls back to a hrtimer-based sampling method - this is a much better fallback than oprofile's fall-back to the timer tick. This hrtimer based sampling is dynticks/nohz-correct and can go beyond HZ if the architecture supports hrtimers. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists