linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] perf tests parse-events: Add intel

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: <20180518141359.GA32141@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 11:13:59 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] perf tests parse-events: Add intel_pt parse test

Em Thu, May 17, 2018 at 05:54:10PM -0500, Kim Phillips escreveu:
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 22:58:11 +0200
> Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 05:15:53PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > So parse_state->error == NULL, Jiri, ideas?
> > 
> > yep, we don't use it in tests.. and when trying intel_pt on
> > system without that pmu, the parse_events_add_pmu fails
> > and store the error to NULL.. we should check on that err pointer
> > 
> > wrt to the test itself, how about we add callback
> > to check if the test is valid before we run it,
> > something like below

As Kim says, that is ok, but then, I think that the test would better
reflect reality if it tested all the error paths, i.e. if it, in the
face of a missing PMU, would fill in the error structs, that would then
be checked for validity, etc.

So if instead of checking if the intel_pt PMU is present to perform the
test it would run the test, with te error struct passed as expected,
then, when it fails, check that the failure indicates that indeed, that
PMU is not there by checking that routine you used to bypass the test,
huh?

Thanks,

- Arnaldo

> > jirka
> 
> That diff makes this test pass again on x86 without an intel_pt, and
> on Arm32/64 (the intel_pt test gets skipped on those machines):
> 
> Tested-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kim