linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coresight: Fix data argument to coresight_enable

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: <87cy7m8amz.fsf@rasp.cworth.amperemail.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 15:12:20 -0500
From: Carl Worth <carl@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Jie Gan
 <jie.gan@....qualcomm.com>, Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, James
 Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>, Alexander Shishkin
 <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: Fix data argument to coresight_enable_helpers

Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> writes:
> Yes, please. I was going to suggest that. May be we could do that as
> a separate patch after fixing the problem here first (so that it
> can be back ported).

Hi, Suzuki,

I saw this suggestion after I had put together my v2 version of the
patch, where I split the path and handle into separate arguments and
also got rid of void* in a single patch. With that approach I think it
only makes sense to do them together.

But if we instead were to make everything work with a single path
argument, then I agree it would have made sense to change the type in a
separate patch.

> This was initially a perf_handle only used for the perf mode, and
> it didn't make sens to have a "perf" argument to "enable" which
> could be used for both sysfs and perf. Now that the path
> is a generic data structure, it makes sense to move everything
> to accept the path.

I'm fairly new to the entire coresight subsystem, so I might be getting
this wrong. It looks to me like the perf handle is really part of the
event so wouldn't logically make sense as part of the path? Am I
understanding that correctly?

-Carl