linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/28] Legacy hardware/cache events as json

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: <86331395-140b-44ca-8351-8bc5c511e211@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 10:20:12 +0100
From: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@....com>,
 Thomas Falcon <thomas.falcon@...el.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>, Beeman Strong <beeman@...osinc.com>,
 Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>, Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/28] Legacy hardware/cache events as json



On 02/10/2025 9:10 pm, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 10:58 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> wrote:
>>  From bisecting, this change came from commit 9eac5612da1c ("perf stat:
>> Don't skip failing group events"):
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250825211204.2784695-3-irogers@google.com/
>> Taking a look.
> 
> I sent a fix:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20251002200604.1792141-2-irogers@google.com/
> that makes it so that only if all events are unsupported that perf
> stat exits - this is addressing a bunch of latent issues and fixes the
> perf-tools-next regression. I don't think there is a difference
> between v3 and v6 wrt this behavior, I think you were probably just
> cherry-picking the v6 patches onto a newer tree. When those 2 patches
> land I can rebase this series on them and drop the first patch of this
> series.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian

That is true about the cherry picking. I could only apply V3 to 
perf-tools and V6 to perf-tools-next, that was just a guess without the 
hash in the cover letter.

I did test both unpatched perf-tools and perf-tools-next to confirm that 
the original behavior was the same in those. Once I saw it was the same 
I assumed the difference was only in the V3 vs V6. But you're right it 
could be because of the base.

I'll retest with the fix applied