linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/x86: Update syscall trace events to handle new x86 syscall func names

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: <20180417124019.1e4350d5@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:40:19 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/x86: Update syscall trace events to handle new
 x86 syscall func names

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:35:27 -0300
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:


> [root@...et ~]# perf test openat
>  2: Detect openat syscall event                           : Ok
>  3: Detect openat syscall event on all cpus               : Ok
> 15: syscalls:sys_enter_openat event fields                : Ok
> [root@...et ~]#
> 
> [root@...et ~]# perf trace -e nanosleep,syscalls:*nanosleep sleep 1
>      0.000 (         ): syscalls:sys_enter_nanosleep:rqtp: 0x7ffd9f737950, rmtp: 0x00000000
>      0.009 (         ): sleep/7905 nanosleep(rqtp: 0x7ffd9f737950                                        ) ...
>   1000.204 (         ): syscalls:sys_exit_nanosleep:0x0
>      0.009 (1000.217 ms): sleep/7905  ... [continued]: nanosleep()) = 0
> [root@...et ~]#
> 
> Works, so the regression seems to be fixed, without looking at the code
> that much:
> 
> Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>

But does this still work on x86_32? I'll test that out. Thanks for
testing, but I may have another patch soon.

-- Steve