* Stephane Eranian <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > * Stephane Eranian <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > > > This isn't limited to admin, right? So the above turns into a DoS
> >> >> > > > on the
> >> >> > > > console.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > Ok, so how about a WARN_ON_ONCE() instead?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That should be fine I guess ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> imho there is need for a generic mechanism to return an error
> >> >> string to the user program without such hacks.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed - we could return an 'extended errno' long error return
> >> > value, which in reality is a pointer to an error string (in
> >> > perf_attr::error_str), and copy that string to user-space at
> >> > perf syscall return time.
> >> >
> >> I assume by perf_attr:error_str, you actually mean:
> >>
> >> struct perf_event_attr {
> >> char error_str[PERF_ERR_LEN];
> >> };
> >>
> >> Right?
> >
> > I don't think we should allocate space in the attr, instead we
> > should use something like:
> >
> > u8 __user *err_str;
> > u32 err_str_len;
> >
> > which would be filled in by tooling with a string and a max_len
> > value, and strncpy_to_user() could do the rest on the kernel
> > side. [ A minor complication is that we don't have a
> > strncpy_to_user() method at the moment. ]
> >
> > Static strings could be handled this way.
> >
> > [ Dynamic strings could be supported too with a few tricks,
> > although I doubt it matters in practice. ]
> >
>
> Ok, but this still limits returning error string to the
> perf_event_open() syscall, not read(), ioctl() and such.
Yes - but this should be enough to handle most of the cases in
practice - because the richness of the various perf components
is mostly exposed via the perf syscall. By the time we get to
read() and ioctl() we are in a pretty well defined domain.
Also, I don't think people want the (small but nonzero) overhead
of extended error reporting for read or ioctl.
> I am fine with this change. However, I think it should be
> added separately from my inst_retired:prec_dist patch. It has
> a broader impact.
Most definitely.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
