linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] perf, persistent: Add persistent events

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:	Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:54:11 +0100
From:	Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...aro.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/12] perf, persistent: Add persistent events

Hi,

Now that the feature is resurfacing, I would like to take over the
task for persistent events.
What is the status of the series, is it close to acceptance?

AFAICS the patch RFC 12/12 was under discussion, mainly about the
naming of the ioctls (latest e-mail is in favor of CLAIM/UNCLAIM).

Any thoughts?

Let me rebase the code against the latest mainline and re-start the discussion.

Thread: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/22/306
RFC 12/12: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/27/264

Regards,
Jean

On 27 August 2013 14:38, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 02:27:21PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
>> > > There are ioctl functions to control persistent events that can be
>> > > used to detach or attach an event to or from a process. The
>> > > PERF_EVENT_IOC_DETACH ioctl call makes an event persistent.
>> >
>> > Yeah, we probably want to abstract this a step further by allowing
>> > to attach/detach fds to/from events. Then "persistent" is only one
>> > incarnation of us always detaching from the event during its lifetime.
>> >
>> > If we close an event while it is attached, it gets destroyed - i.e.,
>> > current functionality, etc. See the other thread.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean here exactly, please explain.
>
> Basically that detaching an event shouldn't make it persistent
> explicitly - it simply continues running in the background. When we
> reattach to it and die with the event attached, then it gets destroyed
> too.
>
> Which means, we can have arbitrary life periods of events, persistency
> being only a special case of it.
>
> IOW, as long as an event is detached in the background, it counts.
> When something attaches to it and that something exits, the event gets
> destroyed too, as part of the process teardown.
>
> And this is probably the most generic way to look at it.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
> --
> 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/
--
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/