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]
Date:   Wed, 6 Feb 2019 03:44:29 +0000
From:   Song Liu <>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <>
CC:     Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Kernel Team <>,
        Netdev <>
Subject: Re: Pull patches from tip/perf/core to bpf-next

> On Feb 5, 2019, at 7:36 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 10:47:06PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>> Hi Alexei and Daniel, 
>> The following patches are required for BPF introspection in perf tools. 
>> Please pull them to bpf-next, so that we get all the dependencies in one
>> tree. 
>> Thanks,
>> Song
>> (from 1/10 to 10/10)
>> 76193a94522f perf, bpf: Introduce PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL
>> d764ac646491 tools headers uapi: Sync tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>> 6ee52e2a3fe4 perf, bpf: Introduce PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT
>> df063c83aa2c tools headers uapi: Sync tools/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h
>> 9aa0bfa370b2 perf tools: Handle PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL
>> 45178a928a4b perf tools: Handle PERF_RECORD_BPF_EVENT
>> 7b612e291a5a perf tools: Synthesize PERF_RECORD_* for loaded BPF programs
>> a40b95bcd30c perf top: Synthesize BPF events for pre-existing loaded BPF programs
>> 6934058d9fb6 bpf: Add module name [bpf] to ksymbols for bpf programs
>> 811184fb6977 perf bpf: Fix synthesized PERF_RECORD_KSYMBOL/BPF_EVENT
> yes. we can certainly do that.
> Do you have bpf specific patches that depend on that ?
> Since it's rc5 already. Are you planning to send them within next week?

BPF introspection work depends on these patches. I have been hopping 
between perf tree and bpf-next tree. I think basing the series up on 
bpf-next plus these patches leads least conflicts. 

I do plan to send the series within next week. 

On a second thought, maybe I should send based on perf tree, and worry
about the conflicts later? It is really heavier on perf side. 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists