linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 00/14] Add support for remote unwind

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: <20160607194426.GF11589@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:44:26 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
	mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
	wangnan0@...wei.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	eranian@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
	sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
	tumanova@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kan.liang@...el.com,
	penberg@...nel.org, dsahern@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/14] Add support for remote unwind

Em Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:06:29AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 03:33:09AM +0000, He Kuang wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > For using remote libunwind libraries, reference this:
> >   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2224430
> > 
> > and now we can use LIBUNWIND_DIR to specific custom dirctories
> > containing libunwind libs.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org> for most patches except:
> > 
> > v9:
> >  - Change function unwind__register_ops() to static.
> >  - Move up unwind__prepare_access() in thread__insert_map() and save
> >    map_groups__remove() call.
> >  - Enclose multiple line if/else into braces.
> >  - Fix miss modified function declaration for unwind__prepare_access()
> >    in patch 10.
> 
> for patchset:
> 
> Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>

Ok, I'm applying it, after fixing 'perf test unwind', 'perf top --call-graph dwarf'
and 'perf trace --call-graph dwarf', but I have one question, is the
scenario where we collect on a x86_64 machine and want to do analysis on
a ARM64 or x86-32 machine supported? This should be the odd case now,
but from a quick look I couldn't see this as being supported, is that
true or I was just lazy not to have tried this?

- Arnaldo