linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf test: perf header test fails on s390

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: <CAP-5=fWb=7qnAcE8i5Kv8yTnmdFOzX2jPvR88bmzqRtGhSbDzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 09:38:06 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org, 
	agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com, 
	hca@...ux.ibm.com, japo@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: perf header test fails on s390

On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 9:09 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 08:42:01AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 2:16 AM Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > commit 2d584688643fa ("perf test: Add header shell test")
> > > introduced a new test case for perf header. It fails on s390
> > > because call graph option -g is not supported on s390.
> > > Also the option --call-graph dwarf is only supported for
> > > the event cpu-clock.
> > >
> > > Remove this option and the test succeeds.
> > >
> > > Output after:
> > >  # ./perf test 76
> > >  76: perf header tests                           : Ok
> > >
> > > Fixes: 2d584688643fa ("perf test: Add header shell test")
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > Acked-by: Sumanth Korikkar <sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> >
> > Thanks Thomas! Given the s390 restriction to require dwarf, should we
> > switch the default "-g" meaning on s390 to mean use dwarf? James Clark
> > proposed this previously. It doesn't affect the change here so:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
>
> Unrelated but I found this test is failing on my machine.
>
>   $ ./perf test -v header
>   --- start ---
>   test child forked, pid 42799
>   Test perf header file
>   [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
>   [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.182 MB /tmp/__perf_test_header.perf.data.vvFUf (4114 samples) ]
>   Test perf header file [Done]
>   Test perf header pipe
>   Failed to find expect hostname in output
>   Failed to find expect os release in output
>   Failed to find expect arch in output
>   Failed to find expect cpuid in output
>   Failed to find expect nrcpus in output
>   Failed to find expect event in output
>   Failed to find expect cmdline in output
>   Failed to find expect perf version in output
>   Failed to find expect sibling (cores|dies|threads) in output
>   Failed to find expect sibling threads in output
>   Failed to find expect total memory in output
>   Test perf header pipe [Done]
>   ---- end(-1) ----
>    83: perf header tests                                               : FAILED!
>
> The pipe mode doesn't have the headers.
>
>   $ ./perf record -o- -g -- ./perf test -w noploop | ./perf report -i- -I --header-only
>   # ========
>   # captured on    : Mon Jun 30 09:02:09 2025
>   # header version : 1
>   # data offset    : 0
>   # data size      : 0
>   # feat offset    : 0
>   # ========
>   #

Strange, permissions? I see:

```
$ /tmp/perf/perf record -o- -g -- /tmp/perf/perf test -w noploop |
/tmp/perf/perf report -i- -I --header-only
# ========
# captured on    : Mon Jun 30 09:35:21 2025
# header version : 1
# data offset    : 0
# data size      : 0
# feat offset    : 0
# ========
#
# hostname : ...
# os release : ...
# perf version : 6.16.rc3.g8f2bc25ec32d
# arch : x86_64
etc.
```

Thanks,
Ian