Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1650279 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-25 10:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-06-06 20:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2017-05-25 10:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> - 2017-06-06 03:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2017-06-06 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> - 2017-06-06 20:20 +0200
| From | Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-25 10:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode |
| Message-ID | <tKW9X-5J4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48:53AM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
SNIP
> +int perf_event__synthesize_features(struct perf_tool *tool,
> + struct perf_session *session,
> + struct perf_evlist *evlist,
> + perf_event__handler_t process)
> +{
> + struct perf_header *header = &session->header;
> + struct feat_fd fdd;
> + struct feature_event *fe;
> + size_t sz, sz_hdr;
> + int feat, ret;
> +
> + sz_hdr = sizeof(fe->header);
> + sz = sizeof(union perf_event);
> + /* get a nice alignment */
> + sz = PERF_ALIGN(sz, getpagesize());
> +
> + memset(&fdd, 0, sizeof(fdd));
> +
> + fdd.buf = malloc(sz);
> + if (!fdd.buf)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + fdd.size = sz - sz_hdr;
> +
> + for_each_set_bit(feat, header->adds_features, HEADER_FEAT_BITS) {
> + if (!feat_ops[feat].has_record) {
> + pr_debug("No record header feature for header :%d\n", feat);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + fdd.offset = sizeof(*fe);
> +
> + ret = feat_ops[feat].write(&fdd, evlist);
> + if (ret || fdd.offset <= (ssize_t)sizeof(*fe)) {
> + pr_debug("Error writing feature\n");
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + /* fdd.buf may have changed due to realloc in do_write() */
right, so how's ensured the data never cross the maximum event size (0xffff) ?
I think do_write should have some check on that
jirka
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 03:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode |
| Message-ID | <tPbDr-24f-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1650279 |
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48:53AM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> +int perf_event__synthesize_features(struct perf_tool *tool,
>> + struct perf_session *session,
>> + struct perf_evlist *evlist,
>> + perf_event__handler_t process)
>> +{
>> + struct perf_header *header = &session->header;
>> + struct feat_fd fdd;
>> + struct feature_event *fe;
>> + size_t sz, sz_hdr;
>> + int feat, ret;
>> +
>> + sz_hdr = sizeof(fe->header);
>> + sz = sizeof(union perf_event);
>> + /* get a nice alignment */
>> + sz = PERF_ALIGN(sz, getpagesize());
>> +
>> + memset(&fdd, 0, sizeof(fdd));
>> +
>> + fdd.buf = malloc(sz);
>> + if (!fdd.buf)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + fdd.size = sz - sz_hdr;
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(feat, header->adds_features, HEADER_FEAT_BITS) {
>> + if (!feat_ops[feat].has_record) {
>> + pr_debug("No record header feature for header :%d\n", feat);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + fdd.offset = sizeof(*fe);
>> +
>> + ret = feat_ops[feat].write(&fdd, evlist);
>> + if (ret || fdd.offset <= (ssize_t)sizeof(*fe)) {
>> + pr_debug("Error writing feature\n");
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* fdd.buf may have changed due to realloc in do_write() */
>
> right, so how's ensured the data never cross the maximum event size (0xffff) ?
>
> I think do_write should have some check on that
do_write reallocates ff->buff when it's not large enough.
>
> jirka
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 13:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tPkx3-7Uz-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1658306 |
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:32:50PM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48:53AM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> +int perf_event__synthesize_features(struct perf_tool *tool,
> >> + struct perf_session *session,
> >> + struct perf_evlist *evlist,
> >> + perf_event__handler_t process)
> >> +{
> >> + struct perf_header *header = &session->header;
> >> + struct feat_fd fdd;
> >> + struct feature_event *fe;
> >> + size_t sz, sz_hdr;
> >> + int feat, ret;
> >> +
> >> + sz_hdr = sizeof(fe->header);
> >> + sz = sizeof(union perf_event);
> >> + /* get a nice alignment */
> >> + sz = PERF_ALIGN(sz, getpagesize());
> >> +
> >> + memset(&fdd, 0, sizeof(fdd));
> >> +
> >> + fdd.buf = malloc(sz);
> >> + if (!fdd.buf)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + fdd.size = sz - sz_hdr;
> >> +
> >> + for_each_set_bit(feat, header->adds_features, HEADER_FEAT_BITS) {
> >> + if (!feat_ops[feat].has_record) {
> >> + pr_debug("No record header feature for header :%d\n", feat);
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + fdd.offset = sizeof(*fe);
> >> +
> >> + ret = feat_ops[feat].write(&fdd, evlist);
> >> + if (ret || fdd.offset <= (ssize_t)sizeof(*fe)) {
> >> + pr_debug("Error writing feature\n");
> >> + continue;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* fdd.buf may have changed due to realloc in do_write() */
> >
> > right, so how's ensured the data never cross the maximum event size (0xffff) ?
> >
> > I think do_write should have some check on that
>
> do_write reallocates ff->buff when it's not large enough.
and what if it's bigger than 0xffff?
jirka
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 20:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode |
| Message-ID | <tPrfc-3TW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1658636 |
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:32:50PM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48:53AM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>> >
>> > SNIP
>> >
>> >> +int perf_event__synthesize_features(struct perf_tool *tool,
>> >> + struct perf_session *session,
>> >> + struct perf_evlist *evlist,
>> >> + perf_event__handler_t process)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct perf_header *header = &session->header;
>> >> + struct feat_fd fdd;
>> >> + struct feature_event *fe;
>> >> + size_t sz, sz_hdr;
>> >> + int feat, ret;
>> >> +
>> >> + sz_hdr = sizeof(fe->header);
>> >> + sz = sizeof(union perf_event);
>> >> + /* get a nice alignment */
>> >> + sz = PERF_ALIGN(sz, getpagesize());
>> >> +
>> >> + memset(&fdd, 0, sizeof(fdd));
>> >> +
>> >> + fdd.buf = malloc(sz);
>> >> + if (!fdd.buf)
>> >> + return -ENOMEM;
>> >> +
>> >> + fdd.size = sz - sz_hdr;
>> >> +
>> >> + for_each_set_bit(feat, header->adds_features, HEADER_FEAT_BITS) {
>> >> + if (!feat_ops[feat].has_record) {
>> >> + pr_debug("No record header feature for header :%d\n", feat);
>> >> + continue;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + fdd.offset = sizeof(*fe);
>> >> +
>> >> + ret = feat_ops[feat].write(&fdd, evlist);
>> >> + if (ret || fdd.offset <= (ssize_t)sizeof(*fe)) {
>> >> + pr_debug("Error writing feature\n");
>> >> + continue;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + /* fdd.buf may have changed due to realloc in do_write() */
>> >
>> > right, so how's ensured the data never cross the maximum event size (0xffff) ?
>> >
>> > I think do_write should have some check on that
>>
>> do_write reallocates ff->buff when it's not large enough.
>
> and what if it's bigger than 0xffff?
>
Oh yeah, I'll add that check.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web