linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] perf: arm64: Kernel support for Dwarf unwinding through SVE functions

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]

Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:57:08 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
        acme@...nel.org, leo.yan@...aro.org, john.garry@...wei.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] perf: arm64: Kernel support for Dwarf unwinding
 through SVE functions

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 03:31:20PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/09/2022 15:04, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 02:26:56PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> >> I'm resubmitting this with a few of the changes suggested by Will on V2.
> >>
> >> I haven't made any changes regarding the open questions about the
> >> discoverability or saving the new reg and passing to output_sample()
> >> because I think it's best to be consistent with the implementations on
> >> other platforms first. I have explained in more detail on v2 [1].
> >>
> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5fcf1a6f-c8fb-c296-992e-18aae8874095@arm.com/
> > 
> > Fair enough, I can't argue against being consistent.
> > 
> > Given that this exposes subtle new user ABI, do we have any coverage in
> > the selftests? If not, please could you add something?
> > 
> 
> Thanks, I will do that. I assume you mean the self tests in
> tools/perf/tests and not some non Perf tests?

I hadn't thought much about it, so wherever is best. It would just be nice
to have something we can run to make sure that this continues to work as
intended.

Will