linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] perf script: modify field selection option

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: <CABPqkBQAA+_QVHALf0d8Ry4PuhygmgBsuSGVNXbRqtSoRJxE5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:21:01 -0800
From:   Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:     Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf script: modify field selection option

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com> wrote:
> On Montag, 20. November 2017 21:53:04 CET Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been using the perf script -F option on the latest perf and I
>> find it not very convenient to use. I appreciate the + and - prefix to
>> field names to add or suppress them. But most of the time, I want to
>> print only one or two fields and I have to guess which ones are there
>> by default so I can suppress them. I think there should be a way to
>> say: start from no fields. I understand why you have default to
>> maintain compatibility with older perf script but I would like a
>> syntax to say: remove defaults. For instance:
>>
>> $ perf script -F --,+ip,+syms .....
>>
>> Where -- would mean drop all defaults.
>>
>> Any better suggestions?
>
> Isn't `perf script -F ip,sym` what you want? Note the lack of any '+':
>
> $ perf script -F ip,sym | head -n 5
>
>                   206aad x86_pmu_enable
>                   380591 ctx_resched
>                   380b46 __perf_event_enable
>                   378716 event_function
>
Ah, yes, looks like it.
problem solved then.
Thanks.