linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] perf: Make SIGTRAP and __perf_pending

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]

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:46:21 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] perf: Make SIGTRAP and __perf_pending_irq() work
 on RT.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 06:22:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:34:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:10:33AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2024-03-13 17:14:25 [-0300], Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > tldr; No dmesg activity, no kernel splats, most tests passed, nothing
> > > > > noticeable when running with/without the patch with Vince's regression
> > > > > tests. So:
> 
> > > > > Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> > > > > Reported-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> 
> > > > Too quick, now I'm testing it on top of torvalds/master, no PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> > > Just to be clear: You revert your Tested-by because now you test this on
> > > torvalds/master but not because you reported a regression which I
> > > missed.
> 
> > You got it right. No regressions, the code is good, I just need to test
> > it a bit further, with torvalds/master, without PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> Tests performed, no regressions detected, same behaviour when killing
> the remove_on_exec selftests midway:
 
> [acme@...e linux]$ uname -a
> Linux nine 6.8.0-rc7.sebastian-rt6+ #2 SMP PREEMPT_RT Tue Mar 12 18:01:31 -03 2024 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Re-reading this I noticed I really retested with the rt kernel, d0h, so
here it goes again:

[acme@...e ~]$ uname -r
6.8.0.sigtrapfix+
[acme@...e ~]$ set -o vi
[acme@...e ~]$ perf test sigtrap
 68: Sigtrap                                                         : Ok
[acme@...e ~]$ cd ~acme/git/linux
[acme@...e linux]$ cd tools/testing/selftests/perf_events && make
make: Nothing to be done for 'all'.
[acme@...e perf_events]$ for x in {0..100}; do (./remove_on_exec &); done
<snip>
ok 4 remove_on_exec.exec_stress
# PASSED: 4 / 4 tests passed.
# Totals: pass:4 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
#            OK  remove_on_exec.exec_stress
ok 4 remove_on_exec.exec_stress
# PASSED: 4 / 4 tests passed.
# Totals: pass:4 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
#            OK  remove_on_exec.exec_stress
ok 4 remove_on_exec.exec_stress
# PASSED: 4 / 4 tests passed.
# Totals: pass:4 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
[acme@...e perf_events]$

So despite this mistake all is well, torvalds/master + your patchkit
seems ok.

Sorry for the noise :-\

- Arnaldo