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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20090612123152.GE31845@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:31:52 +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, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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 08:17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * 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.
> 
> that is a pretty weak reason. [...]

It isnt - this is proper isolation - dont offer something to the 
user to enable that 1) cannot be used due to the lack of a syscall 
2) has not been tested by anyone on that architecture, ever.

That way say build breakages or runtime failures due to perfcounters 
only become possible on an architecture if the architecture 
maintainer has hooked up the syscall and has provided 
HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS explicitly.

This is a basic engineering principle really.

	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/