linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] perf report: Support LLVM for addr2line()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 09:55:37 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sesse@...gle.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, irogers@...gle.com, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] perf report: Support LLVM for addr2line()

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 6:53 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 08:56:47PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 11:22 AM Steinar H. Gunderson <sesse@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > +#elif defined(HAVE_LIBBFD_SUPPORT)
>
> > Hmm.. it's unfortunate that we have only one addr2line
> > implementation at a time.  Maybe we can do the same thing
> > like in annotate with objdump so that it can fallback to another
> > method when failing.  But it'd require more changes beyond
> > this work and I'm not sure if it's really worth it.
>
> Right, I think we shouldn't delay processing these patches because of
> that, we can do it as follow up patches, both for fallbacks in case we
> can detect problems like we did with capstone -> objdump disasm and also
> to be able to compare outputs in 'perf test' shell scripts, discounting
> known/expected minor differences.

Yep, I don't want to delay it unnecessarily.  But I just want more
people to review and/or test the patches. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung