linux-kernel - Re: [tip: perf/core] perf tests: Disable bp

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: <20191022134308.GD32731@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 21:43:08 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Brajeswar Ghosh <brajeswar.linux@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [tip: perf/core] perf tests: Disable bp_signal testing for arm64

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 02:14:25PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:

[...]

> > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c
> > index c1c2c13..166f411 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/bp_signal.c
> > @@ -49,14 +49,6 @@ asm (
> >  	"__test_function:\n"
> >  	"incq (%rdi)\n"
> >  	"ret\n");
> > -#elif defined (__aarch64__)
> > -extern void __test_function(volatile long *ptr);
> > -asm (
> > -	".globl __test_function\n"
> > -	"__test_function:\n"
> > -	"str x30, [x0]\n"
> > -	"ret\n");
> > -
> >  #else
> >  static void __test_function(volatile long *ptr)
> >  {
> > @@ -302,10 +294,15 @@ bool test__bp_signal_is_supported(void)
> >  	 * stepping into the SIGIO handler and getting stuck on the
> >  	 * breakpointed instruction.
> >  	 *
> > +	 * Since arm64 has the same issue with arm for the single-step
> > +	 * handling, this case also gets suck on the breakpointed
> > +	 * instruction.
> 
> Freudian slip?

:D  sorry for typo: s/suck/stuck.

Thanks for review and will send a patch to fix it.

Thanks,
Leo Yan