linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] perf annotate: Remove privsize from symbol_

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: <6e9b795a-6fc5-dcac-9bfe-ac052e3294cf@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Feb 2020 08:07:31 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
        namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, songliubraving@...com,
        yao.jin@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] perf annotate: Remove privsize from
 symbol__annotate() args



On 2/3/20 7:00 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:24:29AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/20 4:46 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:34:27PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
>>>> privsize is passed as 0 from all the symbol__annotate() callers.
>>>> Remove it from argument list.
>>>
>>> Right, trying to figure out when was it that this became unnecessary to
>>> see if this in fact is hiding some other problem...
>>>
>>> It all starts in the following change, re-reading those patches...
>>>
>>> - Arnaldo
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I just had a quick look at:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20171011194323.GI3503@kernel.org/
>>
>> This change was for python annotation support which, I guess, Jiri didn't posted
>> the patches? Jiri, are you planning to post them?
> 
> yea, as I wrote in another reply, this came in as preparation
> to support python code lines, which still did not get in ;-)
> 
> also I replied that this way is probably even better for that,
> so that's why I'm ok with the change

Thanks Jiri.

-Ravi