linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] perf tools changes for v6.5

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: <CAHk-=whOLQsPiDJifHzfg+q-W4q=MXcbvzKLS4J4otOicbZqjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2023 11:43:04 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf tools changes for v6.5

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 15:00, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Please consider pulling perf tool changes.  I'm doing this on behalf of
> Arnaldo as he's on vacation.  This is my first pull request and hope I
> didn't break anything. :)

Things look normal, although I find your pgp key situation confusing.

I looked up your gpg key from the kernel.org pgp key repo, but that's
apparently not the one you used for signing this.

So I have two keys for you, and neither of them are then signed by
others (although that part is probably just the usual pgp mess with
signatures being dropped due to flooded bogus signatures, which has
made the whole pgp infrastructure be essentially close to useless).

Anyway, I wish the pgp key situation would be better, but it's not an
actual problem.

HOWEVER.

What _is_ a problem is that the end result doesn't build cleanly.

The

        if (list_empty(&pmus))
                perf_pmu__scan(NULL);

        ibs_pmu = perf_pmu__find("ibs_op");

in the amd-ibs-via-core no longer works, and it seems that it should just be

        ibs_pmu = perf_pmus__find("ibs_op");

That's fine - I can do (and did) that merge resolution - and it's part
of my normal "merge and test build", but I'm slightly unhappy that I
wasn't told about this part.

The actual data conflicts were trivial. But this was a semantic
conflict that was invisible to git, but showed up in build testing.

And I *think* you should have known about it, because the conflict you
do talk about shows that

 +perf-y += amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.o

as part of the actual data conflicts.

Anyway, I've resolved this, and it wasn't a *problem*, and I'm just a
bit unhappy that it took me by surprise.

              Linus