linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf stat: force error in fallback on :k 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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 07:38:17 -0700
From:   Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf stat: force error in fallback on :k events

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 6:02 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 04:55:15PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> >
> > When it is not possible for a non-privilege perf command
> > to monitor at the kernel level (:k), the fallback code forces
> > a :u. That works if the event was previously monitoring both levels.
> > But if the event was already constrained to kernel only, then it does
> > not make sense to restrict it to user only.
> > Given the code works by exclusion, a kernel only event would have:
> > attr->exclude_user = 1
> > The fallback code would add:
> > attr->exclude_kernel = 1;
> >
> > In the end the end would not monitor in either the user level or kernel
> > level. In other words, it would count nothing.
> >
> > An event programmed to monitor kernel only cannot be switched to user only
> > without seriously warning the user.
> >
> > This patch forces an error in this case to make it clear the request
> > cannot really be satisfied.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/util/evsel.c | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > index d23db6755f51..d1e8862b86ce 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> > @@ -2446,6 +2446,13 @@ bool perf_evsel__fallback(struct evsel *evsel, int err,
> >               char *new_name;
> >               const char *sep = ":";
> >
> > +             if (evsel->core.attr.exclude_user) {
> > +                     scnprintf(msg, msgsize,
> > +"kernel.perf_event_paranoid=%d, event set to exclude user, so cannot also exclude kernel",
> > +                             paranoid);
> > +                     return false;
>
> I'm not able to get this error printed, it seems to be
> overwritten by perf_evsel__open_strerror call
>
> please include perf example with the new output

Agreed, it is possible the change builtin-top/sched/record so that on
error the msg is checked and dumped in verbose mode. I think it is
also fine to just remove the scnprintf. Do you have a preference?

Thanks,
Ian

> thanks,
> jirka
>
> > +             }
> > +
> >               /* Is there already the separator in the name. */
> >               if (strchr(name, '/') ||
> >                   strchr(name, ':'))
> > --
> > 2.26.0.110.g2183baf09c-goog
> >
>