linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf, pt, coresight: Clean up address filter structure

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]

Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 11:19:21 -0700
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf, pt, coresight: Clean up address filter structure

On 18 January 2018 at 10:06, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:59:26AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On 17 January 2018 at 05:31, Alexander Shishkin
>> <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 10:50:50AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> >> > index 39106ae61b..d7a11faac1 100644
>> >> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>> >> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>> >> > @@ -8194,7 +8194,8 @@ static void perf_event_addr_filters_apply(struct perf_event *event)
>> >> >   *  * for kernel addresses: <start address>[/<size>]
>> >> >   *  * for object files:     <start address>[/<size>]@</path/to/object/file>
>> >> >   *
>> >> > - * if <size> is not specified, the range is treated as a single address.
>> >> > + * if <size> is not specified or is zero, the range is treated as a single
>> >> > + * address; not valid for ACTION=="filter".
>> >>
>> >> Now that a size of 0 can't be specified with a "filter" action, I'm
>> >> good with that statement.
>> >
>> > Hi Mathieu, I completely lost track of this.
>> >
>> > Following is the commit I found dangilng in one of my local branches.
>> > Does this make sense to you? Thanks!
>>
>> Oh boy!  That's a whole year ago...  Give me some time to wrap my
>> brain around it again.
>
> Do we need anything for SPE, or is this only applicable to certain types of
> tracing PMUs?

As far as I can tell spe_pmu->pmu->nr_addr_filters isn't set anywhere.
A such SPE isn't concerned here.

Mathieu

>
> Will