| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Pull cifs fixes from Steve French:
"Three small smb3 fixes: two debug related (helping network tracing for
SMB2 mounts, and the other removing an unintended debug line on
signing failures), and one fixing a performance problem with 64K
pages"
* tag '5.7-rc-smb3-fixes' of git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6:
smb3: remove overly noisy debug line in signing errors
cifs: improve read performance for page size 64KB & cache=strict & vers=2.1+
cifs: dump the session id and keys also for SMB2 sessions
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux
Pull flexible-array member conversion from Gustavo Silva:
"The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array
member[1][2], introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof
operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original
implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible
array members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of
code in which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously
applied to zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances
may be hiding some bugs. So, this work (flexible-array member
convertions) will also help to get completely rid of those sorts of
issues.
Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for
quite a while now and, 238 more of these patches have already been
merged into 5.7-rc1.
There are a couple hundred more of these issues waiting to be
addressed in the whole codebase"
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
* tag 'flexible-array-member-5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux: (28 commits)
xattr.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
uapi: linux: fiemap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
uapi: linux: dlm_device.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
tpm_eventlog.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ti_wilink_st.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
swap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
skbuff.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
sched: topology.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
rslib.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
rio.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
posix_acl.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
platform_data: wilco-ec.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
memcontrol.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
list_lru.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
lib: cpu_rmap: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
irq.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ihex.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
igmp.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
genalloc.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ethtool.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
...
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi
Pull SCSI fixes from James Bottomley:
"Seven fixes: three in target, one on a sg error leg, two in qla2xxx
fixing warnings introduced in the last merge window and updating
MAINTAINERS and one in hisi_sas fixing a problem introduced by libata"
* tag 'scsi-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi:
scsi: sg: add sg_remove_request in sg_common_write
scsi: target: tcmu: reset_ring should reset TCMU_DEV_BIT_BROKEN
scsi: target: fix PR IN / READ FULL STATUS for FC
scsi: target: Write NULL to *port_nexus_ptr if no ISID
scsi: MAINTAINERS: Update qla2xxx FC-SCSI driver maintainer
scsi: qla2xxx: Fix regression warnings
scsi: hisi_sas: Fix build error without SATA_HOST
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging
Pull hwmon fixes from Guenter Roeck:
- Fix up chip IDs (isl68137)
- error handling for invalid temperatures and use true module name
(drivetemp)
- Fix static symbol warnings (k10temp)
- Use valid hwmon device name (jc42)
* tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging:
hwmon: (jc42) Fix name to have no illegal characters
hwmon: (k10temp) make some symbols static
hwmon: (drivetemp) Return -ENODATA for invalid temperatures
hwmon: (drivetemp) Use drivetemp's true module name in Kconfig section
hwmon: (pmbus/isl68137) Fix up chip IDs
|
|
Pull xfs fixes from Darrick Wong:
"The three commits here fix some livelocks and other clashes with
fsfreeze, a potential corruption problem, and a minor race between
processes freeing and allocating space when the filesystem is near
ENOSPC.
Summary:
- Fix a partially uninitialized variable.
- Teach the background gc threads to apply for fsfreeze protection.
- Fix some scaling problems when multiple threads try to flush the
filesystem when we're about to hit ENOSPC"
* tag 'xfs-5.7-fixes-3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux:
xfs: move inode flush to the sync workqueue
xfs: fix partially uninitialized structure in xfs_reflink_remap_extent
xfs: acquire superblock freeze protection on eofblocks scans
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux
Pull thread fixes from Christian Brauner:
"A few fixes and minor improvements:
- Correctly validate the cgroup file descriptor when clone3() is used
with CLONE_INTO_CGROUP.
- Check that a new enough version of struct clone_args is passed
which supports the cgroup file descriptor argument when
CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set in the flags argument.
- Catch nonsensical struct clone_args layouts at build time.
- Catch extensions of struct clone_args without updating the uapi
visible size definitions at build time.
- Check whether the signal is valid early in kill_pid_usb_asyncio()
before doing further work.
- Replace open-coded rcu_read_lock()+kill_pid_info()+rcu_read_unlock()
sequence in kill_something_info() with kill_proc_info() which is a
dedicated helper to do just that"
* tag 'for-linus-2020-04-18' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux:
clone3: add build-time CLONE_ARGS_SIZE_VER* validity checks
clone3: add a check for the user struct size if CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set
clone3: fix cgroup argument sanity check
signal: use kill_proc_info instead of kill_pid_info in kill_something_info
signal: check sig before setting info in kill_pid_usb_asyncio
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux
Pull i2c fixes from Wolfram Sang:
"Some driver bugfixes and an old API removal now that all users are
gone"
* 'i2c/for-current' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux:
i2c: tegra: Synchronize DMA before termination
i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy for a long time
i2c: remove i2c_new_probed_device API
i2c: altera: use proper variable to hold errno
i2c: designware: platdrv: Remove DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND flag on BYT and CHT
|
|
Pull drm fixes from Dave Airlie:
"Quiet enough for rc2, mostly amdgpu fixes, a couple of i915 fixes, and
one nouveau module firmware fix:
i915:
- Fix guest page access by using the brand new VFIO dma r/w interface (Yan)
- Fix for i915 perf read buffers (Ashutosh)
amdgpu:
- gfx10 fix
- SMU7 overclocking fix
- RAS fix
- GPU reset fix
- Fix a regression in a previous suspend/resume fix
- Add a gfxoff quirk
nouveau:
- fix missing MODULE_FIRMWARE"
* tag 'drm-fixes-2020-04-18' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm:
drm/nouveau/sec2/gv100-: add missing MODULE_FIRMWARE()
drm/amdgpu/gfx9: add gfxoff quirk
drm/amdgpu: fix the hw hang during perform system reboot and reset
drm/i915/gvt: switch to user vfio_group_pin/upin_pages
drm/i915/gvt: subsitute kvm_read/write_guest with vfio_dma_rw
drm/i915/gvt: hold reference of VFIO group during opening of vgpu
drm/i915/perf: Do not clear pollin for small user read buffers
drm/amdgpu: fix wrong vram lost counter increment V2
drm/amd/powerplay: unload mp1 for Arcturus RAS baco reset
drm/amd/powerplay: force the trim of the mclk dpm_levels if OD is enabled
Revert "drm/amdgpu: change SH MEM alignment mode for gfx10"
|
|
The jc42 driver passes I2C client's name as hwmon device name. In case
of device tree probed devices this ends up being part of the compatible
string, "jc-42.4-temp". This name contains hyphens and the hwmon core
doesn't like this:
jc42 2-0018: hwmon: 'jc-42.4-temp' is not a valid name attribute, please fix
This changes the name to "jc42" which doesn't have any illegal
characters.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417092853.31206-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
|
|
Perf checks the duplicate entries in a callchain before adding an entry.
However the check is very slow especially with deeper call stack.
Almost ~50% elapsed time of perf report is spent on the check when the
call stack is always depth of 32.
The hist_entry__cmp() is used to compare the new entry with the old
entries. It will go through all the available sorts in the sort_list,
and call the specific cmp of each sort, which is very slow.
Actually, for most cases, there are no duplicate entries in callchain.
The symbols are usually different. It's much faster to do a quick check
for symbols first. Only do the full cmp when the symbols are exactly the
same.
The quick check is only to check symbols, not dso. Export
_sort__sym_cmp.
$ perf record --call-graph lbr ./tchain_edit_64
Without the patch
$time perf report --stdio
real 0m21.142s
user 0m21.110s
sys 0m0.033s
With the patch
$time perf report --stdio
real 0m10.977s
user 0m10.948s
sys 0m0.027s
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-18-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
With the LBR stitching approach, the reconstructed LBR call stack can
break the HW limitation. However, it may reconstruct invalid call stacks
in some cases, e.g. exception handing such as setjmp/longjmp. Also, it
may impact the processing time especially when the number of samples
with stitched LBRs are huge.
Add an option to enable the approach.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-17-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
With the LBR stitching approach, the reconstructed LBR call stack
can break the HW limitation. However, it may reconstruct invalid call
stacks in some cases, e.g. exception handing such as setjmp/longjmp.
Also, it may impact the processing time especially when the number of
samples with stitched LBRs are huge.
Add an option to enable the approach.
The option must be used with --call-graph lbr.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-16-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
With the LBR stitching approach, the reconstructed LBR call stack can
break the HW limitation. However, it may reconstruct invalid call stacks
in some cases, e.g. exception handing such as setjmp/longjmp. Also, it
may impact the processing time especially when the number of samples
with stitched LBRs are huge.
Add an option to enable the approach.
Committer testing:
Using the same perf.data as with the latest cset committer testing
section:
$ perf script --stitch-lbr
<SNIP>
tchain_edit 11131 15164.984292: 437491 cycles:u:
401106 f43+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40114c f42+0x18 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401172 f41+0xe (/wb/tchain_edit)
401194 f40+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40119b f39+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4011a2 f38+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4011a9 f37+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4011b0 f36+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4011b7 f35+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4011be f34+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4011c5 f33+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4011cc f32+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401207 f31+0x34 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401212 f30+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401219 f29+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401220 f28+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401227 f27+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40122e f26+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401235 f25+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40123c f24+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401243 f23+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40124a f22+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401251 f21+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401258 f20+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40125f f19+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401266 f18+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40126d f17+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401274 f16+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40127b f15+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401282 f14+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401289 f13+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401290 f12+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
401297 f11+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
40129e f10+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012a5 f9+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012ac f8+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012b3 f7+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012ba f6+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012c1 f5+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012c8 f4+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012cf f3+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012d6 f2+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012dd f1+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
4012e4 main+0x0 (/wb/tchain_edit)
7f41a5016f41 __libc_start_main+0xf1 (/usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so)
<SNIP>
$
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-15-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
With the LBR stitching approach, the reconstructed LBR call stack can
break the HW limitation. However, it may reconstruct invalid call stacks
in some cases, e.g. exception handing such as setjmp/longjmp. Also, it
may impact the processing time especially when the number of samples
with stitched LBRs are huge.
Add an option to enable the approach.
# To display the perf.data header info, please use
# --header/--header-only options.
#
#
# Total Lost Samples: 0
#
# Samples: 6K of event 'cycles'
# Event count (approx.): 6492797701
#
# Children Self Command Shared Object Symbol
# ........ ........ ............... ..................
# .................................
#
99.99% 99.99% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f43
|
---main
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
f11
f12
f13
f14
f15
f16
f17
f18
f19
f20
f21
f22
f23
f24
f25
f26
f27
f28
f29
f30
f31
|
--99.65%--f32
f33
f34
f35
f36
f37
f38
f39
f40
f41
f42
f43
Committer testing:
$ perf record --call-graph lbr /wb/tchain_edit
[ perf record: Woken up 23 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 5.578 MB perf.data (6839 samples) ]
$ perf report --header-only | egrep 'cpu(desc|.*capabilities)'
# cpudesc : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7500 CPU @ 3.40GHz
# cpu pmu capabilities: branches=32, max_precise=3, pmu_name=skylake
$
Before:
$ perf report --no-children --stdio
# To display the perf.data header info, please use --header/--header-only options.
#
#
# Total Lost Samples: 0
#
# Samples: 6K of event 'cycles:u'
# Event count (approx.): 6459523879
#
# Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
# ........ ........... ................ .......................
#
99.95% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f43
|
--99.92%--f43
f42
f41
f40
f39
f38
f37
f36
f35
f34
f33
f32
f31
f30
f29
f28
f27
f26
f25
f24
f23
f22
f21
f20
f19
f18
f17
f16
f15
f14
f13
f12
f11
0.03% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f42
0.01% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f41
0.00% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f31
0.00% tchain_edit ld-2.29.so [.] _dl_relocate_object
0.00% tchain_edit ld-2.29.so [.] memmove
0.00% tchain_edit [unknown] [k] 0xffffffff93a00b17
After:
$ perf report --stitch-lbr --no-children --stdio
# To display the perf.data header info, please use --header/--header-only options.
#
#
# Total Lost Samples: 0
#
# Samples: 6K of event 'cycles:u'
# Event count (approx.): 6459496645
#
# Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
# ........ ........... ................ ........................
#
99.97% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f43
|
--99.93%--f43
f42
f41
f40
f39
f38
f37
f36
f35
f34
f33
f32
f31
f30
f29
f28
f27
f26
f25
f24
f23
f22
f21
f20
f19
f18
f17
f16
f15
f14
f13
f12
f11
f10
f9
f8
f7
f6
f5
f4
f3
f2
f1
main
__libc_start_main
0.02% tchain_edit [unknown] [k] 0xffffffff93a00b17
0.01% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f31
0.00% tchain_edit ld-2.29.so [.] _dl_important_hwcaps
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-14-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
In LBR call stack mode, the depth of reconstructed LBR call stack limits
to the number of LBR registers.
For example, on skylake, the depth of reconstructed LBR call stack is
always <= 32.
# To display the perf.data header info, please use
# --header/--header-only options.
#
#
# Total Lost Samples: 0
#
# Samples: 6K of event 'cycles'
# Event count (approx.): 6487119731
#
# Children Self Command Shared Object Symbol
# ........ ........ ............... ..................
# ................................
99.97% 99.97% tchain_edit tchain_edit [.] f43
|
--99.64%--f11
f12
f13
f14
f15
f16
f17
f18
f19
f20
f21
f22
f23
f24
f25
f26
f27
f28
f29
f30
f31
f32
f33
f34
f35
f36
f37
f38
f39
f40
f41
f42
f43
For a call stack which is deeper than LBR limit, HW will overwrite the
LBR register with oldest branch. Only partial call stacks can be
reconstructed.
However, the overwritten LBRs may still be retrieved from previous
sample. At that moment, HW hasn't overwritten the LBR registers yet.
Perf tools can stitch those overwritten LBRs on current call stacks to
get a more complete call stack.
To determine if LBRs can be stitched, perf tools need to compare current
sample with previous sample.
- They should have identical LBR records (Same from, to and flags
values, and the same physical index of LBR registers).
- The searching starts from the base-of-stack of current sample.
Once perf determines to stitch the previous LBRs, the corresponding LBR
cursor nodes will be copied to 'lists'. The 'lists' is to track the LBR
cursor nodes which are going to be stitched.
When the stitching is over, the nodes will not be freed immediately.
They will be moved to 'free_lists'. Next stitching may reuse the space.
Both 'lists' and 'free_lists' will be freed when all samples are
processed.
Committer notes:
Fix the intel-pt.c initialization of the union with 'struct
branch_flags', that breaks the build with its unnamed union on older gcc
versions.
Uninline thread__free_stitch_list(), as it grew big and started dragging
includes to thread.h, so move it to thread.c where what it needs in
terms of headers are already there.
This fixes the build in several systems such as debian:experimental when
cross building to the MIPS32 architecture, i.e. in the other cases what
was needed was being included by sheer luck.
In file included from builtin-sched.c:11:
util/thread.h: In function 'thread__free_stitch_list':
util/thread.h:169:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'free' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
169 | free(pos);
| ^~~~
util/thread.h:169:3: error: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'free' [-Werror]
util/thread.h:19:1: note: include '<stdlib.h>' or provide a declaration of 'free'
18 | #include "callchain.h"
+++ |+#include <stdlib.h>
19 |
util/thread.h:174:3: error: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'free' [-Werror]
174 | free(pos);
| ^~~~
util/thread.h:174:3: note: include '<stdlib.h>' or provide a declaration of 'free'
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-13-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
The cursor nodes which generates from sample are eventually added into
callchain. To avoid generating cursor nodes from previous samples again,
the previous cursor nodes are also saved for LBR stitching approach.
Some option, e.g. hide-unresolved, may hide some LBRs. Add a variable
'valid' in struct callchain_cursor_node to indicate this case. The LBR
stitching approach will only append the valid cursor nodes from previous
samples later.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-12-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
[ Use zfree() instead of open coded equivalent, and use it when freeing members of structs ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
To retrieve the overwritten LBRs from previous sample for LBR stitching
approach, perf has to save the previous sample.
Only allocate the struct lbr_stitch once, when LBR stitching approach is
enabled and kernel supports hw_idx.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-11-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
[ Use zalloc()/zfree() for thread->lbr_stitch ]
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
The LBR stitch approach should be disabled by default. Because
- The stitching approach base on LBR call stack technology. The known
limitations of LBR call stack technology still apply to the approach,
e.g. Exception handing such as setjmp/longjmp will have calls/returns
not match.
- This approach is not foolproof. There can be cases where it creates
incorrect call stacks from incorrect matches. There is no attempt to
validate any matches in another way.
The 'lbr_stitch_enable' is used to indicate whether enable LBR stitch
approach, which is disabled by default. The following patch will
introduce a new option for each tools to enable the LBR stitch
approach.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-10-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
Both caller and callee needs to add ip from LBR to callchain.
Factor out lbr_callchain_add_lbr_ip() to improve code readability.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-9-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
Both caller and callee needs to add kernel ip to callchain. Factor out
lbr_callchain_add_kernel_ip() to improve code readability.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-8-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
LBR only collect the user call stack. To reconstruct a call stack, both
kernel call stack and user call stack are required. The function
resolve_lbr_callchain_sample() mix the kernel call stack and user call
stack.
Now, with the help of HW idx, perf tool can reconstruct a more complete
call stack by adding some user call stack from previous sample. However,
current implementation is hard to be extended to support it.
Current code path for resolve_lbr_callchain_sample()
for (j = 0; j < mix_chain_nr; j++) {
if (ORDER_CALLEE) {
if (kernel callchain)
Fill callchain info
else if (LBR callchain)
Fill callchain info
} else {
if (LBR callchain)
Fill callchain info
else if (kernel callchain)
Fill callchain info
}
add_callchain_ip();
}
With the patch,
if (ORDER_CALLEE) {
for (j = 0; j < NUM of kernel callchain) {
Fill callchain info
add_callchain_ip();
}
for (; j < mix_chain_nr) {
Fill callchain info
add_callchain_ip();
}
} else {
for (; j < NUM of LBR callchain) {
Fill callchain info
add_callchain_ip();
}
for (j = 0; j < mix_chain_nr) {
Fill callchain info
add_callchain_ip();
}
}
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-7-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|
|
The indent is unnecessary in resolve_lbr_callchain_sample. Removing it
will make the following patch simpler.
Current code path for resolve_lbr_callchain_sample()
/* LBR only affects the user callchain */
if (i != chain_nr) {
body of the function
....
return 1;
}
return 0;
With the patch,
/* LBR only affects the user callchain */
if (i == chain_nr)
return 0;
body of the function
...
return 1;
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Gerasimov <pavel.gerasimov@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@intel.com>
Link: http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200319202517.23423-6-kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
|