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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 19:25:11 +0100 From: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...aro.org> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, "steve.capper@...aro.org" <steve.capper@...aro.org> Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Arnaldo <acme@...stprotocols.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>, Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf tests: Introduce perf_regs_load function on ARM HI Will, Steve, On 6 March 2014 18:22, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:33:15AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:17:00AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote: >> > On 4 March 2014 12:00, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote: >> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:53:21AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote: >> > >> + str lr, [r0, #PC] @ Save caller PC >> > > >> > > This isn't necessarily the `caller PC' (depending on how you define it). >> > > It's the return address, which is probably (but not always) the instruction >> > > following the branch to this function. >> > Agreed. However the perf test code expects a registers buffer filled >> > in with the caller's values. >> > I can change the comment here, is that needed? >> >> It depends what the perf test code really expects. At the moment, you're not >> providing it with anything consistent which doesn't sound correct. > > the code expects caller's PC. That is what the x86 test code > expects from perf_regs_load. We take the return IP saved by > call instruction: > > ENTRY(perf_regs_load) > ... > movq 0(%rsp), %rax > movq %rax, IP(%rdi) > ... > > jirka The perf built-in test code expects the caller PC to do the unwinding from. Does that sound correct to you? Do you want me to add a note like this one (as done in the upcoming aarch64 patches, to be submitted asap after testing): " /* * Implementation of void perf_regs_load(u64 *regs); * * This functions fills in the 'regs' buffer from the actual registers values. * * Notes: * 1. the return value of the pc is retrieved from lr and stored, in order * to skip the call to this function, * 2. the current value of lr is merely retrieved and stored because the * value before the call to this function is unknown at this time; it will * be unwound from the dwarf information in unwind__get_entries. */ " Please let me know how to make this better. Regards, Jean -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists