linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter

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]

Message-ID: <20090612121757.GD31845@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:17:57 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter_open
	when supported


* Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org> wrote:
> >> If the port does not support HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS, then they can't
> >> support the perf_counter_open syscall either.  Rather than forcing
> >> everyone to add an ignore (or suffer the warning until they get
> >> around to implementing support), only whine about the syscall when
> >> applicable.
> >
> > No, this patch is wrong - it's really easy to add support: just hook
> > up the syscall. This should happen for every architecture really, so
> > the warning is correct and it should not be patched out.
> >
> > PMU support is not required to get perfcounters support: if an
> > architecture hooks up the syscall it will get generic software
> > counters and the tools will work as well.
> >
> > Profiling falls back to a hrtimer-based sampling method - this is a
> > much better fallback than oprofile's fall-back to the timer tick.
> > This hrtimer based sampling is dynticks/nohz-correct and can go
> > beyond HZ if the architecture supports hrtimers.
> 
> if there is generic support available, why must every arch select 
> HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS in their Kconfig ?

Because we only want to enable it on architectures that have tested 
it. It should only need a syscall addition, but nothing beats having 
tested things, hence we have that additional Kconfig symbol.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/