linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip Sigtrap test for arm+aarch64

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: <CANpmjNOO-fsU7PP_PqeT53_N=xmNruiT3mvE0e1y=EtKJUfFGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:40:45 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
        leo.yan@...aro.org, dvyukov@...gle.com, will@...nel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        irogers@...gle.com, Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip Sigtrap test for arm+aarch64

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 18:34, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> -#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__)
> >> +#if defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__s390x__) || \
> >> +       defined(__arm__) || defined(__aarch64__)
> >>   #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 0
> >>   #else
> >>   #define BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED 1
> >
> > This is now equivalent to BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED
> > tools/perf/tests/tests.h -- and different from the original
> > BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED (and makes me wonder why
> > BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED wasn't just used from the beginning). Perhaps
> > just use BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED.
> >
>
> We currently have BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED defined now in 2x locations:
>
> tests/sigtrap.c
> tests/bp_account.c
>
> bp_account works for arm64, and we don't want to skip that test. So, as
> long as the macro meaning is appropriate, we can reuse
> BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED for sigtrap.c

BP_ACCOUNT seems to say something about the "breakpoint accounting /
measuring" test. BP_SIGNAL is about the tests that want to use
breakpoints to generate signals.

So it's very much appropriate to use BP_SIGNAL here if, as we have
discovered regardless how they're generated in response to
breakpoints, are broken on arm/arm64. On the day arm/arm64 decides to
fix signals, I'm assuming all tests being skipped with
BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED can be re-enabled (or so we hope).

Thanks,
-- Marco