linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v0 3/5] perf: Introduce instruction trace filtering

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:	Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:01:36 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 3/5] perf: Introduce instruction trace filtering

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 05:48:03PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:

> > We can always call the validation thing, we must not call the program
> > thing !ACTIVE is a clear and simple rule.
> 
> Ah, but pmu::itrace_filter_setup() does not touch the hardware,
> pmu::start() does. The former keeps an array of, say, MSR values ready
> for programming in event::hw and the latter actually writes the MSRs. So
> the above example should not be a problem.
> 
> So in a way validation and programming are split already. And PT, for
> example, won't have it any other way, you can only program stuff into
> the registers while tracing is disabled.

Yes, I just read that in the last patch. If however we fold the whole
stop/start bits into it, that fails again.

Hmm.. lemme ponder a bit.
--
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/