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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:31:10 +0800 From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> CC: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, <lizefan@...wei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, <pi3orama@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] perf test: Test BPF prologue On 2015/11/17 9:29, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10:14PM +0000, Wang Nan escreveu: >> This patch introduces a new BPF script to test BPF prologue. The new >> script probes at null_lseek, which is the function pointer when we try >> to lseek on '/dev/null'. >> >> null_lseek is chosen because it is a function pointer, so we don't need >> to consider inlining and LTO. >> >> By extracting file->f_mode, bpf-script-test-prologue.c should know whether >> the file is writable or readonly. According to llseek_loop() and >> bpf-script-test-prologue.c, one forth of total lseeks should be collected. > So I tentatively changed the section name key=val separator from '\n' to > ';', applied all the patches up to this one (will review the last one > tomorrow), and tested it, reproducing your results, for some reason that > SEC() wasn't working, have to check again, using it expanded, as in my > previous tests, works, I updated the comments to reflect the tests I > did, please take a look. > > I've pushed everything to my perf/ebpf branch, please let me know if > what is there is acceptable, then it will be up to Ingo to decide where > to put this, if in perf/urgent for this merge window, or in perf/core, > for the next one. > > Ah, to extract the output for these BPF sub-tests I had to use -v, i.e. > just: > > # perf test BPF > 37: Test BPF filter : Ok > # > > Ditto for the LLVM one. > > Doesn't tell us too much about all those nice sub-tests... > > How about: > > # perf test -v BPF > 37: Test BPF filter: > 37.1: test a : Ok > 37.2: test b : Ok > 37.3: Test BPF prologue generation : Ok > 37.4: Another... : Ok > 37: Test BPF filter : Ok > # > > Thanks! Thanks to your work. I'm checking them now. > - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists