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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 09:58:28 +0800 From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org> To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> Cc: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.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, Feb 17, 2022 at 06:40:45PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > 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. More general speaking, I think "BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED = 1" means an architecture can support breakpoint with perf_event. "BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED = 1" means an architecture can support breakpoint to generate signals with using perf_event. So "BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED = 1" is subset of "BP_ACCOUNT_IS_SUPPORTED = 1". > 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). Yeah, I agree that BP_SIGNAL_IS_SUPPORTED is better choice for sigtrap.c. Thanks, Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists