linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 11/16] perf report: properly handle branch count in match

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]

Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:19:43 -0200
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:     ravi <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/16] perf report: properly handle branch count in
 match_chain

Em Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 09:48:17AM +0530, ravi escreveu:
> 
> On Friday 13 October 2017 07:38 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >Em Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:39:03AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >>Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:33:05PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> >>>Some of the code paths I introduced before returned too early
> >>>without running the code to handle a node's branch count.
> >>>By refactoring match_chain to only have one exit point, this
> >>>can be remedied.
> >>Fixing up this one now.
> >Millian, this is all fresher in your mind, can you please take a look at
> >my perf/core branch and check if the change i made to ]PATCH v5 09/16]
> >"perf report: compare symbol name for inlined frames when matching" is
> >ok wrt Ravi's fix and then, please, rebase v5 on top of what is there?
> >
> >Ravi, please take a look at this as well, to see if with these changes
> >your fix remains valid, ok?
> 
> Yes Arnaldo, my changes are still valid.

I knot they are valid, probably my wording was unclear, I was asking if,
with Milian changes, and my fixing up to cope with your patch, that was
just in perf/urgent, while Milian work was done on perf/core, everything
worked for your use case.

- Arnaldo
 
> Milian, Can you please change this patch such that it incorporates dso
> comparison for CCKEY_FUNCTION.
> 
> ( Also, will that be good to change macro to CCKEY_FUNCTION_DOS ?)
> 
> Thanks,
> Ravi