linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf python: Set error messages on call failure

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:   Wed, 3 May 2023 10:16:27 -0700
From:   Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To:     Jinli Xiao <jinli.xiao@....edu>
Cc:     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>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Suzuki Poulouse <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf python: Set error messages on call failure

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 7:27 PM Jinli Xiao <jinli.xiao@....edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the prompt response!
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 4:37 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nice! Would it be possible to test this? We could do a shell test
>
> All my changes in this patch is just setting the error message that
> can be interpreted by Python just before the bindings return.
>
> I am not sure about shell test, but I can do something like
>
> [root@...-lexis linux]# export PYTHONPATH=~jinli/linux/tools/perf/python/
> [root@...-lexis linux]# python3
> Python 3.11.2 (main, Feb  8 2023, 00:00:00) [GCC 12.2.1 20221121 (Red
> Hat 12.2.1-4)] on linux
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> import perf
> >>> thread_map = perf.thread_map(9999)   # a non-existent pid in /proc
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory
>
> whereas the original output is
>
> >>> thread_map = perf.thread_map(9999)
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
> SystemError: <class 'perf.thread_map'> returned NULL without setting
> an exception
>
> Upon testing I did find some of the changes unnecessary. I will submit
> a new patch to this.
>
> This is my first time contributing so please let me know if I did
> anything wrong :)

Everything is good with your patch. I'm keen that we try to make sure
we have coverage with tests. We have other shell tests that run
python:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tree/tools/perf/tests/shell/stat+json_output.sh?h=perf-tools-next
So I wonder we can start doing what you did in your example and then
just assert we get a FileNotFoundError in the python. The shell script
is really just a way to run the python and can follow the example in
the link. Sound good?

Thanks,
Ian

> Best wishes,
> Jinli