linux-kernel - Re: Reading perf counters at ftrace trace boundaries

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, 11 Aug 2013 22:59:58 -0300
From:	Karim Yaghmour <karim.yaghmour@...rsys.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: Reading perf counters at ftrace trace boundaries


On 13-08-11 10:47 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> That's what normal sampling already does.
> 
> If you're worried about systematic shadow effects just randomize a bit.

That's actually the point. I'd like to be able to study/compare both
approaches. I could be completely off, but I'd like to see if a divide
and conquer approach (i.e. based on ftrace) wouldn't take the guesswork
out of smart randomization. Just a hunch.

-- 
Karim Yaghmour
CEO - Opersys inc. / www.opersys.com
http://twitter.com/karimyaghmour

--
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/