linux-kernel - Re: perf script: Question: Python trace processing script contains the tid of the process in the common

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170707151800.GC3734@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:18:00 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:     Arun Kalyanasundaram <arunkaly@...gle.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: perf script: Question: Python trace processing script contains
 the tid of the process in the common_pid attribute

Em Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 04:51:26PM -0700, Arun Kalyanasundaram escreveu:
> Arnaldo:
> So, I think what you are suggesting is, we should check the signature
> of the hook to determine if it has an additional attribute and only
> then should we provide the dict. May be something like this:
> 
> PyObject* custom_dict = PyObject_GetAttrString(handler, "other_fields_dict");
> if (custom_dict)
>     //Add dict to PyTuple
> 
> Do you think this would be a better approach?

I think that we should provide as much as possible the common info about
a sample at all the sample processing routines, be it the initial,
tracepoint specific one, the one for non-tracepoint samples and the
trace_unhandled one.

So scripts not using this optional argument will work with older
versions of the perf tool as well as with new ones that support it.

One could say that to use a script that wants this optional argument, a
new enough version of the tool is required.

So yeah, I think this is a better approach. The details of how to best
do this method signature signing need to be figured out, of course.

Thanks for working on this!

- Arnaldo