linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] perf, persistent: Kernel updates for perf tool integration

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: <20130626082408.GA20274@pd.tnic>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:24:08 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] perf, persistent: Kernel updates for perf tool
 integration

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:12:23AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> We get a new fd by opening the persistent event with the syscall.
> There would be 2 new ioctls:
> 
>  ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DETACH, 0);
>  ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ATTACH, 0);
> 
> This would be fine and reuses existing infrastructure.

Well, how are you going to say that you want to open an already existing
persistent event or your want to create exactly the same persistent
event? Are we even going to allow identical persistent events to
coexist?

The answers to those questions gives us the implementation.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/