linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: make perf.data more self-descriptive (v8)

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: <20111201151520.GB15738@erda.amd.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:15:20 +0100
From:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	"acme@...hat.com" <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"dsahern@...il.com" <dsahern@...il.com>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: make perf.data more self-descriptive (v8)

On 01.12.11 16:01:55, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:49:46PM -0200, acme@...hat.com wrote:
> > Em Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:08:29PM +0100, Robert Richter escreveu:
> > > On 29.11.11 10:35:24, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > >         sec_start = header->data_offset + header->data_size;
> > > >         lseek(fd, sec_start + sec_size, SEEK_SET);
> > > > 
> > > >         err = do_write_feat(fd, header, HEADER_TRACE_INFO, &p, evlist);
> > > >         if (err)
> > > >                 goto out_free;
> > > > 
> > > >         err = do_write_feat(fd, header, HEADER_BUILD_ID, &p, evlist);
> > > >         if (err) {
> > > >                 perf_header__clear_feat(header, HEADER_BUILD_ID);
> > > >                 goto out_free;
> > > >         }
> > 
> > > > The 'clear_feat' is missing for TRACE_INFO, that's all. The question is:
> > > > is case do_write_feat(trace_info) fails, is there still a way to parse the file
> > > > correctly? If not, then perf should bail out, if yes, then we need to add the
> > > > clear_feat(TRACE_INFO) in case of error.
> > 
> > > The question is, if do_write_feat() fails for HEADER_TRACE_INFO or
> > > HEADER_BUILD_ID then perf_header__adds_write() fails. A failure of any
> > > other feature simple disables it by calling clear_feat(). I noticed
> > > this asymmetry and wonder why?
> 
> Not sure either. I must confess I didn't write that fixup part...

I am asking this because I want to change code in a way that treats
all features the same, that is just to disable the feature bit on
failure and then continue anyway.

> 
> > > 
> > > Also, is there a reason why HEADER_TRACE_INFO starts with bit 1 instead
> > > of bit 0. Is bit 0 reserved for some reason?
> 
> Looks like a mistake I made from the beginning. And we can't really fix that
> without breaking all perf.data :)

Ok, wasn't sure if the bit was used for other purposes, but seems to
be always zero then.

Thanks,

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

--
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/