linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/uncore: Allow single pmu/box within events group

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:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:06:05 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/uncore: Allow single pmu/box within events group

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:48:59PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:53:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> > index efca2685d876..7b1b34576886 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
> > @@ -319,9 +319,9 @@ static struct intel_uncore_box *uncore_alloc_box(struct intel_uncore_type *type,
> >   */
> >  static int uncore_pmu_event_init(struct perf_event *event);
> >  
> > -static bool is_uncore_event(struct perf_event *event)
> > +static bool is_box_event(struct intel_uncore_box *box, struct perf_event *event)
> >  {
> > -	return event->pmu->event_init == uncore_pmu_event_init;
> > +	return box->pmu == event->pmu;
> 
> this one needs to be:
> 
> +       return box->pmu == uncore_event_to_pmu(event);
> 
> and it works.. ;-)

Will that not explode if we fudge a software event in there?

Wouldn't:

	return box->pmu.pmu == event->pmu;

be the safer option?