linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf parse: Allow names to start with digits

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Oct 2022 16:05:54 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf parse: Allow names to start with digits

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 02:38:54PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Hi Jiri, Ian,
> 
> Jiri Olsa wrote on Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 01:25:28PM +0200:
> > > If you're ok with that I can resend this as three patches: my original
> > > patch, a patch with your diff and test_event() keeping current
> > > behaviour, and a last patch adding that last flag and testing 9p without
> > > format check.
> > > 
> > > (and if you don't think it's worth checking probe existence same thing
> > > but even simpler)
> > 
> > I have that patch split into 2 separated changes,
> > I'll try to send it later today
> 
> It's been a while (I had totally forgotten), but I don't think I saw
> this patch.
> 
> For reminder you've requested that I add some test for a tracepoint
> starting with digits e.g. 9p:9p_client_res but there's nothing commonly
> available to use there, so you added a way to only check without
> checking if a backing tracepoint exist, but I see no trace of the update
> you sent here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/YsGduWiTvkM2/tHv@krava/
> 
> Should I take it, do the split you suggested and send it together with a
> resend of my original patch and new test?

ah, it fell through the cracks, sry.. if you could resend it,
that'd be great

thanks,
jirka

> 
> 
> Ian Rogers wrote on Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 02:39:05PM -0700:
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.l b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.l
> > > index 5b6e4b5249cf..4133d6950d29 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/util/parse-events.l
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/parse-events.l
> > > @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ bpf_source  [^,{}]+\.c[a-zA-Z0-9._]*
> > >  num_dec                [0-9]+
> > >  num_hex                0x[a-fA-F0-9]+
> > >  num_raw_hex    [a-fA-F0-9]+
> > > -name           [a-zA-Z_*?\[\]][a-zA-Z0-9_*?.\[\]!]*
> > > +name           [a-zA-Z0-9_*?\[\]][a-zA-Z0-9_*?.\[\]!]*
> > 
> > Perhaps this would be cleaner as:
> > name           [a-zA-Z0-9_*?\[\]!]+
> > except that would allow a name to start with an exclamation. Would
> > that be an issue?
> 
> Sorry for the lack of reply -- I have no opinion on this as long as we
> can use digits.
> I can't imagine any probe starting with . or !, but that does not seem
> to create any ambiguity with the rest of the grammar that I can see
> either so I think it'd be fine, but I'm not comfortable deciding.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Dominique