linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf util: Display warning when perf report/annotate is missing some libs

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:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:04:46 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>, jolsa@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf util: Display warning when perf report/annotate is
 missing some libs

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:43:15PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:40:35PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > Em Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:38:07PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:11:10AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> > > > Hi Jiri,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm still thinking it's worth displaying the warning when perf missing some
> > > > libraries.
> > > > 
> > > > Somebody just told me that perf didn't work well. While after some
> > > > investigations, I found it's just missing some libraries when building the
> > > > perf.
> > > > 
> > > > But I have spent some time on getting the root cause. If with this patch, it
> > > > should be very easily to know that.
> > > 
> > > true.. Arnaldo, any feedback on this one?
> > 
> > Lemme re-read the thread...
> 
> Well, how about we make it harder to build without key libraries? I.e.
> if we detect that what we consider a core set of libraries isn't found
> in the system, then we stop the build, warn about it and ask the user to
> confirm that the build should proceed by passing some explicit
> -DI_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING___PROCEED=doit

hum, not sure we want to complicate the build even more than it
is now :-\ and IMO it still won't help much in Jin's problem,
if user forces the build anyway

jirka