linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM

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:	Wed, 7 May 2014 14:24:53 +0200
From:	Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...aro.org>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"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>,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add dwarf unwind test on ARM

Hi Jiri,

On 7 May 2014 14:06, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 05:26:18PM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:
>
SNIP
>
> there's a memory leak of 'buf' already fixed fox x86:
>
>   perf tests x86: Fix memory leak in sample_ustack()
>   commit 763d7f5f2718f085bab5a9e63308349728f3ad12
>   Author: Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>
>   Date:   Sun Apr 20 00:16:41 2014 +0900
>
> jirka

Ok

Here is the diff between the x86 and the ARM implementations:
$ diff -urN tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.c
--- tools/perf/arch/arm64/tests/dwarf-unwind.c    2014-05-06
17:31:17.507961045 +0200
+++ tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.c    2014-05-06
16:52:00.589776839 +0200
@@ -21,11 +21,12 @@
         return -1;
     }

-    sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_ARM64_SP];
+    sp = (unsigned long) regs[PERF_REG_X86_SP];

-    map = map_groups__find(&thread->mg, MAP__FUNCTION, (u64) sp);
+    map = map_groups__find(thread->mg, MAP__VARIABLE, (u64) sp);
     if (!map) {
         pr_debug("failed to get stack map\n");
+        free(buf);
         return -1;
     }

Which leads to a few questions:
- the map_groups__find parameters need to be fixed too, right?
- the free(buf) needs to be fixed,
- given that the remaining difference in the file is just a register
macro, it is worth to factor the code in a single file. Does that make
sense? If worthwhile I can do that once the ARM and ARM64 support is
merged in.

What do you think?

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/