[PATCH 1/2] perf cs-etm: Fix corrupt data after perf inject from

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 08:04:32AM +0800, Leo Yan escreveu:
> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:53:54PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Hi Leo and Al,
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:47:50PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > > From: Al Grant <al.grant at arm.com>
> > > 
> > > Commit 42bbabed09ce ("perf tools: Add hw_idx in struct branch_stack")
> > > changed the format of branch stacks in perf samples. When samples use
> > > this new format, a flag must be set in the corresponding event.
> > > Synthesized branch stacks generated from CoreSight ETM trace were using
> > > the new format, but not setting the event attribute, leading to
> > > consumers seeing corrupt data. This patch fixes the issue by setting the
> > > event attribute to indicate use of the new format.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 42bbabed09ce ("perf tools: Add hw_idx in struct branch_stack")
> > > Signed-off-by: Al Grant <al.grant at arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrea Brunato <andrea.brunato at arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan at linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c
> > > index c283223fb31f..a2a369e2fbb6 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c
> > > @@ -1344,8 +1344,15 @@ static int cs_etm__synth_events(struct cs_etm_auxtrace *etm,
> > >  		attr.sample_type &= ~(u64)PERF_SAMPLE_ADDR;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	if (etm->synth_opts.last_branch)
> > > +	if (etm->synth_opts.last_branch) {
> > >  		attr.sample_type |= PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK;
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * We don't use the hardware index, but the sample generation
> > > +		 * code uses the new format branch_stack with this field,
> > > +		 * so the event attributes must indicate that it's present.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		attr.branch_sample_type |= PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_HW_INDEX;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > I've see this patch before...  I thought it had been merged - what happened?
> 
> This patch before has been sent by Al to CoreSight mailing list but has
> not sent to LKML, this is why I resent it to LKML in case it's missed.

So, was it Acked on the CoreSight mailing list? Are we missing any
Acked-by or Reviewed-by for this 1/2 patch as we got for 2/2?

- Arnaldo