linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] rv/ltl: Prepare for other monitor types

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: <88f589e09328b907ff2dd3e58d1fe4fcc09dbb3c.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:14:03 +0200
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
To: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>,  Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rv/ltl: Prepare for other monitor types

On Thu, 2025-07-31 at 11:28 +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 11:04:44AM +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> > I stole your solution to get rid of macros for the DA as well
> > (might
> > post it after this merge window or with the next changes) and I'm
> > currently running with this:
> 
> Nice, glad you like it.
> 
> For global monitor, you could do
> 
>      typdef struct {} monitor_target;
> 
>      static monitor_target rv_global_target;
> 

Well, implicit monitors (cpu and global for DA) don't really have a
target but I'll probably be using this for other types if necessary or
in case I'm unifying things. Which might be nice, if it didn't require
modifying all per-cpu monitors (where CPU is not passed because the
current one is assumed).

> I didn't check clang, but gcc does not emit anything for this. So
> effectively the compiled code does not have the "target" parameter.
> 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rv.h b/include/linux/rv.h
> > index 14410a42faef..6a7594080db1 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rv.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rv.h
> > @@ -13,6 +13,10 @@
> >  #define MAX_DA_NAME_LEN			32
> >  #define MAX_DA_RETRY_RACING_EVENTS	3
> >  
> > +#define RV_MON_GLOBAL   0
> > +#define RV_MON_PER_CPU  1
> > +#define RV_MON_PER_TASK 2
> > +
> > 
> > The numbers don't really matter and you don't need to implement
> > all, of
> > course.
> 
> That makes sense, will do.
> 
> > I'm not sure how are our patches going to coordinate,
> 
> Let's just post them. The one whose patches are not applied first
> will have to rebase. It is a trivial rebase anyway.

Sure then, git may be smart enough to see there aren't conflicts.

Thanks,
Gabriele