linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: correct SNOOPX field offset

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: <67062e1a-98b1-1f0d-d405-2c0dc2ce655a@foss.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 16:05:50 +0100
From:   Al Grant <al.grant@...s.arm.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: correct SNOOPX field offset



On 01/09/2020 16:02, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Al Grant escreveu:
>> On 26/08/2020 15:26, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:40:43AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:28:34AM +0100, Al Grant wrote:
>>>>> perf_event.h has macros that define the field offsets in the
>>>>> data_src bitmask in perf records. The SNOOPX and REMOTE offsets
>>>>> were both 37. These are distinct fields, and the bitfield layout
>>>>> in perf_mem_data_src confirms that SNOOPX should be at offset 38.
>>>>
>>>> Looks good.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> Probably should have a Fixes: header
>>>
>>> Please do so, find the patch that introduced the error, add the Fixes
>>> tag, will help me not having to do it myself :-)
>>
>> Fixes: 52839e653b562 ("perf tools: Add support for printing new mem_info
>> encodings")
> 
> Ok, I'll add that, thanks.
>  > But you forgot to add your Signed-off-by:, can you please provide it?

Signed-off-by: Al Grant <al.grant@....com>

> There was also a minor problem in the patch, there was no separation of
> --- from the patch comment section to the patch itself, I'll fix that as
> well.

Thanks, will remember for next time.

Al