| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Z79std66tPq-nqsD@google.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:34:13 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf report: Add 'tgid' sort key
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:48:56PM +0100, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:25:35PM +0100, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:11:17PM +0100, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:07:18PM +0100, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:51:35PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 08:40:37PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 6:51 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:18:37AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > > [SNIP]
> > > > > > > > I thought the real-time processing had to use
> > > > > > > > maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert (rather than maps__insert) as mmap
> > > > > > > > events only give us VMA data and two mmaps may have been merged.
> > > > > > > > Shouldn't doing this change be the simplest fix?
> > >
> > > > > > > Make sense. How about this?
> > >
> > > > > > Lgtm, I have no way to test the issue. Why does maps__fixup_end need
> > > > > > to get pushed later?
> > >
> > > > > I just noticed it would add extra kernel maps after modules. I think it
> > > > > should fixup end address of the kernel maps after adding all maps first.
> > >
> > > > > Arnaldo, can you please test this?
> > >
> > > > Trying it now.
> > >
> > > Now we have something different:
> > >
> > > root@...ber:~# perf record sleep
> > > sleep: missing operand
> > > Try 'sleep --help' for more information.
> > > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> > > perf: util/maps.c:80: check_invariants: Assertion `RC_CHK_EQUAL(map__kmap(map)->kmaps, maps)' failed.
> > > Aborted (core dumped)
> > > root@...ber:~#
> >
> > __maps__insert() does:
> >
> > if (dso && dso__kernel(dso)) {
> > struct kmap *kmap = map__kmap(new);
> >
> > if (kmap)
> > kmap->kmaps = maps;
> > else
> > pr_err("Internal error: kernel dso with non kernel map\n");
> > }
> >
> > while maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert() doesn't.
> >
> > It calls __maps__insert_sorted() that probably should do what
> > __maps__insert() does?
>
> Ok, so I did the following patch but this case fails:
>
> @@ -910,6 +928,7 @@ static int __maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert(struct maps *maps, struct map *new)
> */
> map__put(maps_by_address[i]);
> maps_by_address[i] = map__get(new);
> + map__set_kmap(new, maps);
> check_invariants(maps);
> return err;
> }
>
> With:
>
> perf: util/maps.c:110: check_invariants: Assertion `refcount_read(map__refcnt(map)) > 1' failed.
>
> As:
>
> 106 /*
> 107 * Maps by name maps should be in maps_by_address, so
> 108 * the reference count should be higher.
> 109 */
> 110 assert(refcount_read(map__refcnt(map)) > 1);
>
> Since it is just replacing the map in the maps_by_address and not
> touching on the maps_by_name? Thus the refcount is just 1:
Sounds like it. Can you add this on top?
Thanks,
Namhyung
---8<---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/maps.c b/tools/perf/util/maps.c
index 09c9cc326c08d435..3aee0c9e8d421cef 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/maps.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/maps.c
@@ -797,7 +797,7 @@ static int __maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert(struct maps *maps, struct map *new)
{
int err = 0;
FILE *fp = debug_file();
- unsigned int i;
+ unsigned int i, ni;
if (!maps__maps_by_address_sorted(maps))
__maps__sort_by_address(maps);
@@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ static int __maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert(struct maps *maps, struct map *new)
*/
for (i = first_ending_after(maps, new); i < maps__nr_maps(maps); ) {
struct map **maps_by_address = maps__maps_by_address(maps);
+ struct map **maps_by_name = maps__maps_by_name(maps);
struct map *pos = maps_by_address[i];
struct map *before = NULL, *after = NULL;
@@ -827,6 +828,9 @@ static int __maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert(struct maps *maps, struct map *new)
map__fprintf(pos, fp);
}
+ if (maps_by_name)
+ ni = maps__by_name_index(maps, pos);
+
/*
* Now check if we need to create new maps for areas not
* overlapped by the new map:
@@ -871,6 +875,11 @@ static int __maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert(struct maps *maps, struct map *new)
if (before) {
map__put(maps_by_address[i]);
maps_by_address[i] = before;
+ if (maps_by_name) {
+ map__put(maps_by_name[ni]);
+ maps_by_name[ni] = map__get(before);
+ }
+
/* Maps are still ordered, go to next one. */
i++;
if (after) {
@@ -892,6 +901,10 @@ static int __maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert(struct maps *maps, struct map *new)
*/
map__put(maps_by_address[i]);
maps_by_address[i] = map__get(new);
+ if (maps_by_name) {
+ map__put(maps_by_name[ni]);
+ maps_by_name[ni] = map__get(new);
+ }
err = __maps__insert_sorted(maps, i + 1, after, NULL);
map__put(after);
check_invariants(maps);
@@ -910,6 +923,10 @@ static int __maps__fixup_overlap_and_insert(struct maps *maps, struct map *new)
*/
map__put(maps_by_address[i]);
maps_by_address[i] = map__get(new);
+ if (maps_by_name) {
+ map__put(maps_by_name[ni]);
+ maps_by_name[ni] = map__get(new);
+ }
check_invariants(maps);
return err;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists