linux-kernel - Re: Implement lbr-as-callgraph v10

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: <20141120193347.GL3790@kernel.org>
Date:	Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:33:47 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Implement lbr-as-callgraph v10

Em Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:48:22PM +0100, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:04:58PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:10:27AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > Em Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:54:50AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > > > > BUILD_BUG_ON then?
> > > > > 
> > > > > sounds gut
> > > > 
> > > > hum, acme/perf/core changed and so has the compile error ;-)
> > > > we dont overload the <linux/bug.h>, so the kernel one got
> > > > included, which is wrong.. attached patch fixes that
> > > 
> > > I had fixed this but not force pushed out, sorry.
> > > 
> > > Now I mistakenly tried running:
> > > 
> > > perf report --stdio --no-children --branch-history
> > > 
> > > on a file that has no BRANCH_STACK, i.e. a perf.data file on a wrong
 
> It works with -g.

What works with -g? perf report?


> Without -g it will just give an error message. I think that is ok, isn't it?
 
> > > directory since I'm comparing the output of --stdio, --tui and --gtk,
> > > since it looks --gtk is wrong, still unsure about what the problem is in
> > > that case, but stumbled on:
> > > 
> > 
> > I need to investigate this further, so I created a perf/branch-history
> > branch that has the patches I need to test more rebased on top of my
> > perf/core branch I just pushed out to Ingo.
> 
> 
> I tested --gtk and I don't see any differences to the console mode
> with --branch-history.  What problem do you see?

The difference is with --tui, but I haven't checked if this is a problem
introduced by your patchkit or if this is something that was there
before it was applied.

- Arnaldo
--
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/