linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software 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]

Message-ID: <F70BD5BE-C698-4C53-9ECD-A4805CB2D659@fb.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 15:25:44 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)" 
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kajoljain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software
 events



> On Aug 30, 2021, at 3:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 03:13:04PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
>> +int dummy_perf_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_snapshot *br_snapshot);
>> +
>> +DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(perf_snapshot_branch_stack, dummy_perf_snapshot_branch_stack);
>> +
>> #endif /* _LINUX_PERF_EVENT_H */
>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>> index 011cc5069b7ba..c53fe90e630ac 100644
>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>> @@ -13437,3 +13437,6 @@ struct cgroup_subsys perf_event_cgrp_subsys = {
>> 	.threaded	= true,
>> };
>> #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_PERF */
>> +
>> +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL(perf_snapshot_branch_stack,
>> +			dummy_perf_snapshot_branch_stack);
> 
> This isn't right...
> 
> The whole dummy_perf_snapshot_branch_stack() thing is a declaration only
> and used as a typedef. Also, DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL() and
> static_call_cond() rely on a void return value, which it doesn't have.
> 
> Did you want:
> 
>  DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(perf_snapshot_branch_stack, void (*)(struct perf_branch_snapshot *));
> 
>  DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL(perf_snapshot_branch_stack, void (*)(struct perf_branch_snapshot *));
> 
>  static_call_cond(perf_snapshot_branch_stack)(...);
> 
> *OR*, do you actually need that return value, in which case you're
> probably looking for:
> 
>  DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(perf_snapshot_branch_stack, int (*)(struct perf_branch_snapshot *));
> 
>  DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(perf_snapshot_branch_stack, int (*)(struct perf_branch_snapshot *));
> 
>  ret = static_call(perf_snapshot_branch_stack)(...);
> 
> ?

Thanks for these information! I did get confused these macros for quite a 
while. Let me try with the _RET0 version.

Song