Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf record: Add 8-byte aligned event type PERF_RECORD_COMPRESSED2

[Namhyung Kim]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 01:17:46PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 12:52:09PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 06:27:05PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:32:40AM -0800, Chun-Tse Shao wrote:
> > > > The original PERF_RECORD_COMPRESS is not 8-byte aligned, which can cause
> > > > asan runtime error:
> 
> > > >   # Build with asan
> > > >   $ make -C tools/perf O=/tmp/perf DEBUG=1 EXTRA_CFLAGS="-O0 -g -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fsanitize=undefined"
> > > >   # Test success with many asan runtime errors:
> > > >   $ /tmp/perf/perf test "Zstd perf.data compression/decompression" -vv
> > > >    83: Zstd perf.data compression/decompression:
> > > >   ...
> > > >   util/session.c:1959:13: runtime error: member access within misaligned address 0x7f69e3f99653 for type 'union perf_event', which requires 13 byte alignment
> > > >   0x7f69e3f99653: note: pointer points here
> > > >    d0  3a 50 69 44 00 00 00 00  00 08 00 bb 07 00 00 00  00 00 00 44 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 ff 07 00 00
> > > >                 ^
> > > >   util/session.c:2163:22: runtime error: member access within misaligned address 0x7f69e3f99653 for type 'union perf_event', which requires 8 byte alignment
> > > >   0x7f69e3f99653: note: pointer points here
> > > >    d0  3a 50 69 44 00 00 00 00  00 08 00 bb 07 00 00 00  00 00 00 44 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 ff 07 00 00
> > > >                 ^
> > > >   ...
> 
> > > > Since there is no way to align compressed data in zstd compression, this
> > > > patch add a new event type `PERF_RECORD_COMPRESSED2`, which adds a field
> > > > `data_size` to specify the actual compressed data size. The
> > > > `header.size` contains the total record size, including the padding at
> > > > the end to make it 8-byte aligned.
> 
> > > > Tested with `Zstd perf.data compression/decompression`
> 
> > > Looks good to me.
>  
> > > Arnaldo, are you ok with adding a new record type for this?
>  
> > Checking the discussion and the patch.
> 
> My first impression yesterday when I saw this on the smartphone was: how
> will an old perf binary handle the new PERF_RECORD_COMPRESSED2? Will it
> ignore it while emitting a warning, since it can be skipped and then
> what we will get a partial view?
> 
> Having some session output showing how an older perf binary handles
> PERF_RECORD_COMPRESS2 would be informative.

I think it'll show the below warning:

  <offset> [<size>]: failed to process type: 83

Thanks,
Namhyung