[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dbc68bbf-b1a8-77ab-c89c-2d890a0382cc@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:31:10 +0800
From: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] perf/core: Fake regs for leaked kernel samples
Hi Peter,
On 8/11/2020 3:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 03:50:43PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
>> Could I post v2 which basically refers to your patch but removes some
>> conditions since I see some issues in test if we use these conditions.
>>
>> 1. Remove '!event->attr.exclude_hv || !event->attr.exclude_host ||
>> !event->attr.exclude_guest' at the entry of sanitize_sample_regs().
>>
>> 2. Remove '!attr.exclude_hv || !attr.exclude_host || !attr.exclude_guest'
>> at the perf_event_open syscall entry.
>
> exclude_host, maybe -- due to the dodgy semantics of it, but the others
> should definitely be there.
>
exclude_guest and exclude_hv are tricky too.
If we do 'perf record -e cycles:u' in both host and guest, we can see:
event->attr.exclude_guest = 0
thus sanitize_sample_regs() returns regs directly even if exclude_kernel = 1.
And in guest, exclude_hv = 0, it's out of my expectation too.
Thanks
Jin Yao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists