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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:09:03 +0800
From:   "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, 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 3/22/2018 4:51 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:04:10AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/21/2018 11:38 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>>> I just think it'd better provide some hints to user. For example,
>>>>> "symbol is disabled and you need to install libelf/xxx", say something
>>>>> like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it looks the column can't contain too much information (i.e. no more
>>>>> space to contain the entire hints).
>>>>>
>>>>> Any idea? Or just add this warning in verbose mode?
>>>>>
>>>>>> also your change does not affect tui mode
>>>>>>
>>>>>> annotation for some reason does not start at all.. could be
>>>>>> little more verbose ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jirka
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it doesn't affect tui mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or we just add this warning in verbose mode?
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g. perf report -v?
>>>
>>> how about displaying libraries separately with -vv output,
>>> that would mimic the build message, like:
>>>
>>>     $ ./perf -vv
>>>     perf version 4.16.rc6.g18fd48
>>>
>>>                      dwarf: [ on  ]
>>>         dwarf_getlocations: [ on  ]
>>>                      glibc: [ on  ]
>>>                       gtk2: [ on  ]
>>>                   libaudit: [ on  ]
>>>                     libbfd: [ on  ]
>>>                     libelf: [ on  ]
>>>                    libnuma: [ on  ]
>>>     numa_num_possible_cpus: [ on  ]
>>>                    libperl: [ on  ]
>>>                  libpython: [ on  ]
>>>                   libslang: [ on  ]
>>>                  libcrypto: [ on  ]
>>>                  libunwind: [ on  ]
>>>         libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ on  ]
>>>                       zlib: [ on  ]
>>>                       lzma: [ on  ]
>>>                  get_cpuid: [ on  ]
>>>                        bpf: [ on  ]
>>>
>>> and perf -vvv could display the 'make VF=1' info
>>>
>>> jirka
>>>
>>
>> I'm just afraid that the newbie will not check the -vv on his own when he
>> gets trouble in using perf.
>>
>> In other words, if a user is experienced and he knows -vv yet, I may assume
>> that he should know installing all libraries before building the perf.
>>
>> This patch is specific for the perf newbie. It will directly shows the
>> error/warning when the user launches the perf binary. It will have a little
>> bit helps, I guess. :)
> 
> I just don't like the idea that when you run perf report,
> or annotate it spits out lines for every missing feature
> 
> maybe we could detect missing features for given command
> and display line about missing features and say something
> like:
> 
> 'Warning: symbol,dwarf support not compiled in (for more details run perf -vv)'
> 
> or somwthing like that.. ;-)
> 
> jirka
> 

Hi Jiri,

I think your idea is very good!

I guess following it's just an example copied from perf building 
process, right?

$ ./perf -vv
perf version 4.16.rc6.g18fd48

                  dwarf: [ on  ]
     dwarf_getlocations: [ on  ]
                  glibc: [ on  ]
                   gtk2: [ on  ]
               libaudit: [ on  ]
                 libbfd: [ on  ]
                 libelf: [ on  ]
                libnuma: [ on  ]
numa_num_possible_cpus: [ on  ]
                libperl: [ on  ]
              libpython: [ on  ]
               libslang: [ on  ]
              libcrypto: [ on  ]
              libunwind: [ on  ]
     libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ on  ]
                   zlib: [ on  ]
                   lzma: [ on  ]
              get_cpuid: [ on  ]
                    bpf: [ on  ]

We can check some CFLAGS like "#ifdef HAVE_XXX" in perf code to 
determine if some libraries are compiled in.

For example,

#ifdef HAVE_LIBNUMA_SUPPORT
	printf("libnuma: [ on  ]");
#endif

For some features, such as "numa_num_possible_cpus", which doesn't have 
CFLAGS variables. Maybe we can ignore them in report?

I'd like to upgrade my patch to support perf -vv.

Thanks
Jin Yao