lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [BUG] perf: arch_perf_out_copy_user default
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 02:37:50PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi Frederic,

Hi Peter,

> I just spotted:
>
> #ifndef arch_perf_out_copy_user
> #define arch_perf_out_copy_user __copy_from_user_inatomic
> #endif
>
> vs:
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h:#define arch_perf_out_copy_user copy_from_user_nmi
>
>
> Now the problem is that copy_from_user_nmi() and
> __copy_from_user_inatomic() have different return semantics.
>
> Furthermore, the macro you use them in DEFINE_OUTPUT_COPY() assumes the
> return value is the amount of memory copied; as also illustrated by
> memcpy_common().
>
> Trouble is, __copy_from_user_inatomic() returns the number of bytes
> _NOT_ copied.
>
> With this, my question to Will is, how did your ARM unwind support
> patches ever work? AFAICT they end up using the
> __copy_from_user_inatomic() thing.

Yeah, that's weird, because they *do* appear to work! In fact, looking at
the code in kernel/events/core.c, it looks like __output_copy_user is
expected to return the number of bytes not copied, so providing the
__copy_from_user_inatomic succeeds first time around, the DEFINE_OUTPUT_COPY
macro will return len (dump_size) and the perf_output_skip will deal with
the buffer pointers for us. The issue then is that dynamic size will be 0,
and the unwind code in perf will never be called (except I know that it *is*
being called).

I'll go dig further...

Will


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-30 20:41    [W:0.109 / U:1.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site