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: <20220922205707.GB12945@willie-the-truck>
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ