linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf: add support for capturing skid IP

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: <CABPqkBRB5sB5_OY0UNmKUsamqHMFnTkS+Xe9fjSDzBdi2rxU5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:12:16 -0700
From:   Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf: add support for capturing skid IP

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:52:07PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>>> Andi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> >> Looking at this approach, the user interface is straightforward,
>>> >> implementation in the x86 code is a bit more hairy because of the way
>>> >> the branch_stack is captured, via the cpuc->lbr_entries. If you assume
>>> >> that SKID_IP cannot be used with any other branch stack mode, then it
>>> >> is easy. It becomes messy if you don't.
>>> >
>>> > That should be fine. After all if you have real LBRs you don't need
>>> > the skid IP.
>>> >
>>> Yes, you still do. This is not the same thing. LBR captures only taken branches.
>>> I care about taken AND non-taken branches and I don't want to sample on a
>>> non-taken event, assuming it is available.
>>
>> Ok that's a reasonable argument for reporting it separately, like
>> in your original patch.
>>
> Yeah, I think it is easier and more portable, especially on hardware with a
> PEBS-like mechanism but no branch buffer (like LBR). FYI, I did do a test
> implementation yesterday to evaluate the difficulty.
>
A more generalized usage of the feature is to evaluate the amount of skid
for any precise event.

>> -Andi