linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/4] perf tools: Add a test for decoding of new x86 instructions

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:	Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:03:58 +0000
From:	平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI 
	<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	"'Adrian Hunter'" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] perf tools: Add a test for decoding of new x86
 instructions

> From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@...el.com]
> On 01/09/15 03:18, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI wrote:
> >> From: Adrian Hunter [mailto:adrian.hunter@...el.com]
> >>
> >> Add a new test titled:
> >>
> >> 	Test x86 instruction decoder - new instructions
> >>
> >> The purpose of this test is to check the instruction decoder
> >> after new instructions have been added.  Initially, MPX
> >> instructions are tested which are already supported, but the
> >> definitions in x86-opcode-map.txt will be tweaked in a
> >> subsequent patch, after which this test can be run to verify
> >> those changes.
> >
> > Hmm, btw, why should this test in perf? It seems that we need
> > this test in kselftest or build-time selftest.
> > I prefer to put this in arch/x86/tools/ or lib/. What would you
> > think ?
> 
> There are 2 reasons perf tools needs a test:
> 	1. perf tools is source code independent from the kernel i.e. it has its
> own copy of the instruction decoder.
> 	2. perf tools test also tests the Intel PT decoder's categorization of
> instructions.

OK, then, can I port this insn tests into the kbuild? I'd like to use this,
but because of finding bugs in early stage, I think same test should be
done in the kernel build process (as a kbuild option).

Thank you,