linux-kernel - Re: [bug report][stable] perf probe: failed to add events

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: <20190226142009.GC26786@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:09 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        luto@...nel.org, Jiufei Xue <jiufei.xue@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Xu Yu <xuyu@...ux.alibaba.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [bug report][stable] perf probe: failed to add events

Em Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:08:02PM +0100, Greg KH escreveu:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:32:34PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 19/2/26 17:05, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:31:14PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm using kernel v4.19.24 and have found that there is an issue when
> > >> using perf probe to define a new dynamic tracepoint.
> > >>
> > >> $ perf probe -a handle_mm_fault
> > >> Failed to write event: Numerical result out of range
> > >>   Error: Failed to add events.
> > >>
> > >> I've also tried kernel v4.20, and it can pass.
> > > 
> > > Ick, has this ever worked on the 4.19 stable tree?  If so, any chance
> > > you can run 'git bisect' to find the offending commit?
> > > 
> > >From my test, v4.19.0 also has this issue.
> > Bisect locates that it is introduced by commit bf904d2762ee
> > "x86/pti/64: Remove the SYSCALL64 entry trampoline".
> 
> But that commit was in 4.20, not 4.19.  So if this never worked, it's
> not a regression?
> 
> confused,

Adrian, Ideas?

- Arnaldo