linux-kernel - Re: perf_counters issue with enable_on

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:	Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:30:56 +0200
From:	stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
	Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
	Corey J Ashford <cjashfor@...ibm.com>,
	Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
	Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
	perfmon2-devel <perfmon2-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: perf_counters issue with enable_on_exec

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Paul Mackerras<paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
> stephane eranian writes:
>
>> I am running into an issue trying to use enable_on_exec
>> in per-thread mode with an event group.
>>
>> My understanding is that enable_on_exec allows activation
>> of an event on first exec. This is useful for tools monitoring
>> other tasks and which you invoke as: tool my_program. In
>> other words, the tool forks+execs my_program. This option
>> allows developers to setup the events after the fork (to get
>> the pid) but before the exec(). Only execution after the exec
>> is monitored. This alleviates the need to use the
>> ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME) call.
>>
>> My understanding is that an event group is scheduled only
>> if all events in the group are active (disabled=0). Thus, one
>
> Not quite - if the leader is disabled then none of the group goes on.
> If the leader is enabled then it and any other group members that are
> enabled go on.  If a non-leader member is disabled then it doesn't go
> on but it doesn't stop other members from going on.
>
okay, what is not clear to me is why you need that level of granularity?
--
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/