linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Add procfs based memory and network tool events

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: <aWh0XwBDZRRYcZOG@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 21:00:15 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Falcon <thomas.falcon@...el.com>,
	Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] Add procfs based memory and network tool events

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 10:08:20AM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 8:51 AM Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com> writes:
> >
> > > Add events for memory use and network activity based on data readily
> > > available in /prod/pid/statm, /proc/pid/smaps_rollup and
> > > /proc/pid/net/dev. For example the network usage of chrome processes
> > > on a system may be gathered with:
> > > ```
> > > $ perf stat -e
> > > net_rx_bytes,net_rx_compressed,net_rx_drop,net_rx_errors,net_rx_fifo,net_rx_frame,net_rx_multicast,net_rx_packets,net_tx_bytes,net_tx_carrier,net_tx_colls,net_tx_compressed,net_tx_drop,net_tx_errors,net_tx_fifo,net_tx_packets
> > > -p $(pidof -d, chrome) -I 1000
> >
> > But AFAIK that's for the complete network name space, not just the
> > process, thus highly misleading in perf context because the scope
> > is incompatible.
> 
> Yeah, we can point this out in the event descriptions or just not have
> the events and try to do some per process BPF type thing. Given we
> don't have the BPF thing it is still tempting to have these counters
> as-is for the system-wide case.

You may want to make it fail to open for per-process mode.

Thanks,
Namhyung