linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH Linux-next] perf test: Fix test case perf trace BTF general tests

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251119125903.417f595e@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:59:03 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 Linux-next] perf test: Fix test case perf trace BTF
 general tests

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 20:36:46 -0800
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:

> > Really? It still uses libtraceevent right? I made sure that this didn't
> > break trace-cmd and thought that perf would work too.  
> 
> It doesn't completely break perf trace but added new parameter for the
> write syscall at the end.  IIUC perf trace iterates the format fields
> after __syscall_nr and take them all as syscall parameters.

Is this a regression? Or can perf be fixed?

I just ran it and I have this:

   542.337 ( 0.131 ms): sshd-session/1189 write(fd: 7<socket:[9749]>, buf: , count: 268)                        = 268

I haven't tried it without the patches. Does it usually show what "buf" is?
Now with the reading of user space, it can show the content too!

-- Steve