linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Don't retest sections in "Object code reading"

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: <a7698f4f-6541-4d3c-afea-d30baa4776f5@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:32:56 +0100
From: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 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>,
 Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tests: Don't retest sections in "Object code
 reading"



On 07/10/2025 9:01 pm, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 10:10:12AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
>> On 06/10/2025 4:21 pm, Ian Rogers wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 6:11 AM James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>> +       data = zalloc(sizeof(*data));
>>>> +       if (!data)
>>>> +               return true;
> 
>>>> +       data->addr = addr;
>>>> +       strlcpy(data->path, path, sizeof(data->path));
>   
>>> nit: perhaps strdup rather than having 4kb per tested_section.
> 
>> Oh yeah that would have been better, not sure why I didn't do it that way.
>> Although the max sections I saw was around 50, and it's usually a lot less
>> so it's probably not worth the churn to change it now that Arnaldo's applied
>> it?
> 
> I see you submitted a patch for using strdup() and then there is a need
> for checking the strdup(), etc.
> 
> Since at this point this is an improvement on a test and all is sitting
> in linux-next and the window is closing for v6.18, lets leave this for
> the next window, ok?
> 

Makes sense.

> These would be good things for some tool to catch, before it gets sent,
> but that is another rabbit hole :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Arnaldo

Does Smatch work on Perf? I imagine it would catch this if it does. Or 
just plain old cppcheck. I'll take a look.

James