linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] perf cs_etm: Record ts_source in AUXTRACE

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: <765577d3-cbdc-1371-f33e-ef6be42139dd@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:15:58 +0000
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To:     James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, tanmay@...vell.com,
        sgoutham@...vell.com, gcherian@...vell.com, lcherian@...vell.com,
        bbhushan2@...vell.com, German Gomez <german.gomez@....com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] perf cs_etm: Record ts_source in AUXTRACE_INFO for
 ETMv4 and ETE

On 03/01/2023 11:49, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/12/2022 09:28, Mike Leach wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There was a discussion some time ago in one of our coresight regular
>> dev meetings about this.
>>
>> Can we just use only the necessary bits that TS source needs and leave
>> the remaining bits from the 64 as unused  for future expansion - i..e
>> use this as a bitfield rather than have 64 bits occupied for what is
>> effectively a 2 bit value.
>>
>> Perhaps call the full value something other than TS_SOURCE and have a
>> TS_SOURCE field with a known safe unset value.
> 
> If we did that, there wouldn't be any mechanism to detect if new values
> that were added were the value 0, or just not set/implemented/saved in
> the file. The current implementation of CS_ETM_NR_TRC_PARAMS allows us
> to add new fields, and detect if they exist or not without bumping the
> header version for each new sub field.
> 
> In this change HAS_PARAM() has been used to do this, but that can't be
> expanded to sub fields in the same 64 bits. I don't think space or
> performance are worth the extra complexity of dividing it up. And
> because this is just one block saved once in the header, so I'm not sure
> if it's worth it in this case. It would also make it harder to read the
> values on the raw dump mode.

I think it is fine to use the entire field for the time source, given
the header can be extended with new fields, without breaking
compatibility for future additions.

Suzuki

> 
> James