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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:17:42 +0000 From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pi3orama@....com, lizefan@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/53] perf test: Improve bp_signal On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:23AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:21:29AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:37:29PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:08PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu: > > > > Will Deacon [1] has some question on patch [2]. This patch improves > > > > test__bp_signal so we can test: > > > > > > > > 1. A watchpoint and a breakpoint that fire on the same instruction > > > > 2. Nested signals > > > > > > > > Test result: > > > > > > > > On x86_64 and ARM64 (result are similar with patch [2] on ARM64): > > > > > > > > # ./perf test -v signal > > > > 17: Test breakpoint overflow signal handler : > > > > --- start --- > > > > test child forked, pid 10213 > > > > count1 1, count2 3, count3 2, overflow 3, overflows_2 3 > > > > test child finished with 0 > > > > ---- end ---- > > > > Test breakpoint overflow signal handler: Ok > > > > > > > > So at least 2 cases Will doubted are handled correctly. > > > > > > > > [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160104165535.GI1616@arm.com > > > > [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1450921362-198371-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com> > > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> > > > > > > Will, are you ok with this one? Can I have an Acked-by or better, > > > Tested-by for the AARCH64 base? > > > > > > IIRC Jiri made some comment about this one? > > > > I thought I acked this one.. all comments were addresses, so: > > > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> > > Ok, so, Will, any comments? Nack? Sorry, snowed under at the moment. I need to go back over the arch/arm64 patch, since I did have some concerns on that and the changes to the perf tool don't do a lot without the corresponding architecture update which I'm extremely nervous about. I'll revisit that patch once I've got through the more pressing changes in the queue. Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists