linux-kernel - Re: disabling group leader perf

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:14:29 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: disabling group leader perf_event

On Sun 2010-09-12 20:48:43, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> >  On 09/12/2010 08:46 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >  1- Most (least abstract) specific code: a block of bytecode in the form
> > >     of a simplified, executable, kernel-checked x86 machine code block -
> > >     this is also the fastest form. [yes, this is actually possible.]
> > >Well... if we want to be a bit x86-entric.... can we just reuse ACPI
> > >interpretter?
> > 
> > I hope this was a joke, ACPI won the academy awards for ugliness, 
> > ..., bad specification, non-generality, and 

As did i386 instruction set :-).

> It also combines the worst of the two worlds: it's the most specific 
> type of code (almost like assembly), but has a very slow interpreter.
> 
> With 'x86 bytecode' the main (and pretty much only) point is to be able 
> to execute the code as-is, once checked.
> 
> But, as i explained it before, i only consider it a theoretical 
> possibility and i think that abstract code (such as ASCII text C source 
> code) is a better solution.

Compiler in kernel?

I'm not sure I like that one. Yes, ACPI interpreter is slow, but it is
simple, already in kernel, and there are already tools to compile into
it...

While it may be ugly, I believe it is better than either i386
verifier, compiler in the kernel, or yet another interpretter...

									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/