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: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:09:36 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> To: Thomas-Mich Richter <tmricht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux390-list@...maker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: fix perf test case 14 result reporting Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Thomas-Mich Richter escreveu: > On 06/01/2017 11:04 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >> Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu: > >>> Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test) > >>> always reports success even if the test case fails. > >>> It works correctly if you also specify -F (for don't fork). > >> > >> Thanks for working on this, adding Jiri Olsa, that wrote this test > >> harness, so that he can check and provide his Acked-by or Reviewed-by, > >> Jiri? > >> > >> - Arnaldo > >> > >>> root@...lp76 perf]# ./perf test -v 14 > >>> 14: Setup struct perf_event_attr : > >>> --- start --- > >>> running './tests/attr/test-record-no-delay' > >>> [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ] > >>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.002 MB /tmp/tmp4E1h7R/perf.data > >>> (1 samples) ] > >>> expected task=0, got 1 > >>> expected precise_ip=0, got 3 > >>> expected wakeup_events=1, got 0 > >>> FAILED './tests/attr/test-record-no-delay' - match failure > >>> test child finished with 0 > >>> ---- end ---- > >>> Setup struct perf_event_attr: Ok > >>> > >>> The reason for the wrong error reporting is the return value of the > >>> system() library call. It is called in run_dir() file tests/attr.c > >>> and returns the exit status, in above case 0xff00. > >>> This value is given as parameter to the exit() function which > >>> can only handle values 0-0xff. > >>> The child process terminates with exit value of 0 and the parent > >>> does not detect any error. > >>> > >>> This patch corrects the error reporting and prints the > >>> correct test result. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>> Reviewed-by: Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > >>> --- > >>> tools/perf/tests/attr.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/attr.c b/tools/perf/tests/attr.c > >>> index 88dc51f..131b510 100644 > >>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/attr.c > >>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/attr.c > >>> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static int run_dir(const char *d, const char *perf) > >>> snprintf(cmd, 3*PATH_MAX, PYTHON " %s/attr.py -d %s/attr/ -p %s %.*s", > >>> d, d, perf, vcnt, v); > >>> > >>> - return system(cmd); > >>> + return system(cmd) ? TEST_FAIL : TEST_OK; > >>> } > >>> > >>> int test__attr(int subtest __maybe_unused) > >>> -- > >>> 2.9.3 > > > > seems ok, however "perf test attr" is broken ATM, since it wasn't updated > > for some time as it showed false 'Ok' > > > > I started fixing it some time ago, but got distracted, if you are > > interested, you're welcome to pick up from my branch ;-) > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git > > perf/attr_test > > > > thanks, > > jirka > > > > I have started work on perf tool very recently to get s390 support > working and up to date. > > I downloaded your branch and discovered you have already fixed > another issue I run into this week. For example > commit 070b9644981e ("perf tests attr: Do not store failed events") > > I can certainly help you to get this test case operational again. > Maybe you need to pull some of your patches out of your backlog > and submit them the kernel to get to a common base to work on. > > I suggest we should move the discussion to the linux-perf-users > mailing list. > > Your thoughts? If you have specific patches in Jiri's branch that you think are good to go, just point me to them and I'll cherry-pick them. I'm looking now at the one you pointed out above (070b9644981e). Thanks, - Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists