linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] arm: perf: conditionally use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO

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: <20190108131031.GG6808@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:10:31 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        robin.murphy@....com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] arm: perf: conditionally use
 PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:07:41PM +0000, Andrew Murray wrote:

> Yes I found lots of examples like this across the tree whilst doing this
> work. However I decided to initially start with simply removing duplicated
> code as a result of adding this flag and attempting to preserve existing
> functionality. I thought that if I add missing checks then the patchset
> will get much bigger and be harder to merge. I would like to do this though
> as another non-cross-arch series.
> 
> Can we limit this patch series to the minimal changes required to fully
> use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_EXCLUDE and then attempt to fix these existing problems
> in subsequent patch sets?

Ok, but it would've been nice to see that mentioned somewhere.