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: <20170519123648.p4tkt6xrt5xachuw@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 19 May 2017 14:36:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Drop kernel samples even though :u is
 specified

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 08:24:19PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> > Ah, I was more thinking of something like PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_SKID or
> > something that would skip the test and preserve current behaviour.
> 
> OK, I understand now. For example, for PEBS event, its capabilities should
> be set with PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_SKID.

Except you cannot in fact do that, since PEBS is the same struct pmu as
the normal counters (they share counter space after all).

Also, weren't there PEBS errata that would allow this to happen?

But no, more for other architectures to opt out for some reason. But I'm
thinking we want to start out by unconditionally doing this. It would be
good to try and Cc most arch pmu maintainers on this though, so they can
object.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ