linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/insn: perf tools: Add a few 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 14:55:12 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:	平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI 
	<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	"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>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/insn: perf tools: Add a few new x86 instructions


* Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:

> > Agreed, what I concern is that someone finds a bug and fixes one of them and 
> > another is not fixed.
> > 
> > I'll see the forked version and check if it can be merged into the kernel.
> 
> Ever since Linus complained about perf tools including kernel headers, I have 
> assumed we should have separate source code.  That email thread was not cc'ed to 
> a mailing list but here is a quote:
> 
> Em Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 08:53:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds escreveu:
>
> > So this is more fundamental, and looks like it's just due to perf abusing the 
> > kernel headers, and now that rbtree has rcu support ("rbtree: Make lockless 
> > searches non-fatal"), it gets tons of headers included that really don't work 
> > from user space.
> >
> > There might be other things going on, but the rbtree one seems to be a big 
> > one. I think perf needs to get its own rbtree header or something, instead of 
> > doing that insane "let's include random core kernel headers" thing.

Note that even plain copying and occasional back-merges isn't a bad solution: it's 
better than 'messy sharing' of code.

But we can also share code in a bit more organized fashion, and any of the two 
solutions I proposed solve these complications:

 - if we do the diff -u check warning during perf build then the forked versions
   won't stay forked for long. This is the simplest variant.

 - if we librarize this functionality into tools/lib/x86/decode/ (and make sure 
   it's a library that can be linked into the kernel) then we are back to shared 
   code.

The problem wasn't to share code per se, the problem was to share code in a messy 
way, without making it apparent that it's shared code: which made it easy to break 
the tools/perf build via harmless looking kernel side changes.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/