linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -perf/perf/core 5/6] perf probe: Add variable filter support

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:	Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:12:56 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Cc:	Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 2nddept-manager@....hitachi.co.jp,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -perf/perf/core  5/6] perf probe: Add variable filter
 support

(2011/01/17 21:07), Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:42:05AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
>> (2011/01/14 6:18), Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if the different syntax below could be simpler:
>>>
>>>    $ perf probe add <probe>
>>>    $ perf probe del <probe>
>>>    $ perf probe show       
>>>    $ perf probe list <line>
>>>            ...       --vars[=<pattern>] [--externs] <probe>
>>>            ...       --funcs[=<pattern>]
>  
>> Hm, well, if no one complains about changing the syntax of perf probe,
>> it may make things simple (maybe we'll also have to drop "perf probe
>> <PROBE>" syntax). Nowadays we already have perf-kvm, perf-sched, etc.
>> which use sub-sub commands.
>  
>> IMHO, for avoiding confusion old options and "perf-list", below
>> sub-sub commands are more suitable.
>  
>>    $ perf probe add <probe>
>>    $ perf probe del <probe>
>>    $ perf probe list
>>    $ perf probe lines <line>
>>    $ perf probe vars [--filter=<pattern>|-F <pattern>] [--extern] <probe>
>>    $ perf probe funcs [--filter=<pattern>|-F <pattern>]
> 
> Right, and when packaging, we can do just like Ingo and Thomas are doing
> with 'perf trace', create a hardlink and if argv[0] is 'probe', that is
> an alias to 'perf probe', so we would do it just like:
> 
> $ probe add <probe>
> $ probe del <probe>
> $ probe list
> $ probe lines <line>
> $ probe vars [--filter=<pattern>|-F <pattern>] [--extern] <probe>
> $ probe funcs [--filter=<pattern>|-F <pattern>]

Looks good! :)

BTW, it seems that 'make clean' doesn't cleanup that
'trace' hardlink...

> 
> [root@...icio ~]# probe
> bash: probe: command not found...
> 
> Also google told me that there was an /sbin/probe utility, but that was
> a long time ago, in the kernel-pcmcia-cs package, nowadays we have
> pcmciautils and it doesn't have this command, so I think it is up for
> grabs :-)
> 
> So I think that the 'probe funcs' makes sense, will apply that patch in
> perf/core.

Thanks!


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
2nd Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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/