Revision 7f453c24b95a085fc7bd35d53b33abc4dc5a048b authored by Peter Zijlstra on 21 July 2009, 11:19:40 UTC, committed by Peter Zijlstra on 22 July 2009, 16:05:56 UTC
Anton noted that for inherited counters the counter-id as provided by PERF_SAMPLE_ID isn't mappable to the id found through PERF_RECORD_ID because each inherited counter gets its own id. His suggestion was to always return the parent counter id, since that is the primary counter id as exposed. However, these inherited counters have a unique identifier so that events like PERF_EVENT_PERIOD and PERF_EVENT_THROTTLE can be specific about which counter gets modified, which is important when trying to normalize the sample streams. This patch removes PERF_EVENT_PERIOD in favour of PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD, which is more useful anyway, since changing periods became a lot more common than initially thought -- rendering PERF_EVENT_PERIOD the less useful solution (also, PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD reports the more accurate value, since it reports the value used to trigger the overflow, whereas PERF_EVENT_PERIOD simply reports the requested period changed, which might only take effect on the next cycle). This still leaves us PERF_EVENT_THROTTLE to consider, but since that _should_ be a rare occurrence, and linking it to a primary id is the most useful bit to diagnose the problem, we introduce a PERF_SAMPLE_STREAM_ID, for those few cases where the full reconstruction is important. [Does change the ABI a little, but I see no other way out] Suggested-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> LKML-Reference: <1248095846.15751.8781.camel@twins>
1 parent 573402d
SecurityBugs
Linux kernel developers take security very seriously. As such, we'd
like to know when a security bug is found so that it can be fixed and
disclosed as quickly as possible. Please report security bugs to the
Linux kernel security team.
1) Contact
The Linux kernel security team can be contacted by email at
<security@kernel.org>. This is a private list of security officers
who will help verify the bug report and develop and release a fix.
It is possible that the security team will bring in extra help from
area maintainers to understand and fix the security vulnerability.
As it is with any bug, the more information provided the easier it
will be to diagnose and fix. Please review the procedure outlined in
REPORTING-BUGS if you are unclear about what information is helpful.
Any exploit code is very helpful and will not be released without
consent from the reporter unless it has already been made public.
2) Disclosure
The goal of the Linux kernel security team is to work with the
bug submitter to bug resolution as well as disclosure. We prefer
to fully disclose the bug as soon as possible. It is reasonable to
delay disclosure when the bug or the fix is not yet fully understood,
the solution is not well-tested or for vendor coordination. However, we
expect these delays to be short, measurable in days, not weeks or months.
A disclosure date is negotiated by the security team working with the
bug submitter as well as vendors. However, the kernel security team
holds the final say when setting a disclosure date. The timeframe for
disclosure is from immediate (esp. if it's already publically known)
to a few weeks. As a basic default policy, we expect report date to
disclosure date to be on the order of 7 days.
3) Non-disclosure agreements
The Linux kernel security team is not a formal body and therefore unable
to enter any non-disclosure agreements.
Computing file changes ...
