linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 0/9] perf tool: parser generator for events parsing

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: <20120215133218.GD1664@m.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:32:18 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	acme@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
	cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 0/9] perf tool: parser generator for events parsing

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 10:24 +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:03:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > These would be: period, config, config1, config2 and stephane's new
> > > branch_sample_type, although that might want to get a shorter name.
> > 
> > right, for pmu/.../ syntax there are allowed only fields from 'format'
> > directory are so far.. with exceptions like: cycles/period=100000/
> > 
> > so I'll hardcode following config fields:
> > 	config
> > 	config1
> > 	config2
> > 	period
> > 	branch_sample_type (branch, branch_type, branch_st  ???)
> 
> Uhmm,.. Stephane any particular preference on this?
> 
> > to be used in xxx/.../ syntax
> > 
> > also we need to choose some strategy of format field name shadowing
> > with hardcoded fields:
> > 
> > - BUILD_BUG in kernel PMU_FORMAT_ATTR
> > - not allowed.. report error in perf runtime
> > - allowed - hardcoded field have precedence
> > - allowed - format field values have precedence
> > 
> > I'd say either allow shadowing(with whatever precedence we this is better),
> > or have the BUILD_BUG line in kernel..
> 
> I agree, if we can get the BUILD_BUG thing working that might be the
> best option, otherwise we can do the precedence thing. We could even add
> a syntax to resolve the namespace conflict in the latter case (eg. use
> '$' PE_NAME to mean the hardcoded in case of conflict).
err.. I could not get the BUILD_BUG working... looks like string
comparison is something you are not supposed to do in cpp.. ;)

currently, I have the hardcoded fields to have a precedence,
and I'd workaround/fix it if there's need.. later I mean..

also, any idea when's the branch_sample_type going in?

thanks,
jirka
--
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/