From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E62801DE885; Wed, 28 Jan 2026 18:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769624141; cv=none; b=gsNquJr8igBfm57QbfI7giNIRGqT8lT7jCXH5CPSe0+UD6asMNAMPJdgQGCZar5RxCPe5mNqeSRGLcYPQSR6XMO2oq3+PICis7Qru/FultP5F6DDZBaLCe5OLbqdhYKB3xf4nnJQeMOZtMQTyRA7CDrNcuj1wyV7z1a1CLTj/f4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769624141; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7XmaObTSqUJRF6jbNDiR6aslI2HW5hF7c/1N0j8zDT4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LRd+etSedIVQ57ChtB1zddfvXwyhKf5jbjHmwAvAFvvT49SmTMJ2mGy4q2Z1aaTEG9vkvKS2yWwX6fEyJioFBtXXTj7HZZ5tZIIsR5CcPhN8LWnYAHHw68hVvVoIqoQRynmZxv8j3/9HvgKipxdbYQT51v77HPAqf8ibrqptSqI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=k1efsc1m; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="k1efsc1m" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E39F5C4CEF1; Wed, 28 Jan 2026 18:15:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769624140; bh=7XmaObTSqUJRF6jbNDiR6aslI2HW5hF7c/1N0j8zDT4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=k1efsc1mbfI/XZtg081I4HwI1s/PfYWHA2AAUzndzOxyPZlYwOTDyFui6XgfsLj7x m/BErtJgObZIL8HAszhr1AdES398GnLhXJF9BAAw/I6x3m21MNRTYGEUus2DzjGTwU 0kAxs44mBD4T/tMCy4JoJPw8vkUcnE9xbkIfHt0UtsIyPLGU/dWTthYS7udVPwma2b s8Uj+SKtDIe2WieuQZ26oYgfkwb9JXXhn0Aye8MxneHG7oIMla+rCdzYugKx1AfzY1 J9ym73kpMnSUUcJTvOpDrEQlwiz+6vpDONy5tpNVj3H6Mn+o/1ua6zhJtUxZDMh9dc YBLjtKd3JtzVQ== Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:15:37 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Swapnil Sapkal Cc: Shrikanth Hegde , mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@kernel.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com, thomas.falcon@intel.com, ashelat@redhat.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com, ravi.bangoria@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com, james.clark@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] perf header: Replace hardcoded max cpus by MAX_NR_CPUS Message-ID: References: <20260127185000.431884-1-swapnil.sapkal@amd.com> <20260127185000.431884-2-swapnil.sapkal@amd.com> <0117fe41-0016-49d7-bc73-1ec682ca8783@linux.ibm.com> <50e3ac65-fc5d-47d0-bdc4-5c8c1fc8eac1@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <50e3ac65-fc5d-47d0-bdc4-5c8c1fc8eac1@amd.com> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 09:55:05PM +0530, Swapnil Sapkal wrote: > Hi Srikanth, Arnaldo, > > Thank you for reviewing the patches. > > On 28-01-2026 13:09, Shrikanth Hegde wrote: > > > > > > On 1/28/26 12:19 AM, Swapnil Sapkal wrote: > > > cpumask and cpulist from cpu-domain header have hardcoded max_cpus value > > > of 1024. Current systems have more cpus than this value. Replace it with > > > MAX_NR_CPUS. Also define a macro to represent domain name length. > > > > > > Fixes: d40c68a49f69 ("perf header: Support CPU DOMAIN relation info") > > > Reported-by: Shrikanth Hegde > > > Signed-off-by: Swapnil Sapkal > > > --- > > >   tools/perf/util/header.c | 5 +++-- > > >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/header.c b/tools/perf/util/header.c > > > index eefd1cd73b6a..31c3bab1b10a 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/header.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/header.c > > > @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static const u64 __perf_magic2    = > > > 0x32454c4946524550ULL; > > >   static const u64 __perf_magic2_sw = 0x50455246494c4532ULL; > > >   #define PERF_MAGIC    __perf_magic2 > > > +#define DNAME_LEN    16 > > >   const char perf_version_string[] = PERF_VERSION; > > > @@ -1616,10 +1617,10 @@ static int write_pmu_caps(struct feat_fd *ff, > > >   struct cpu_domain_map **build_cpu_domain_map(u32 > > > *schedstat_version, u32 *max_sched_domains, u32 nr) > > >   { > > > +    char dname[DNAME_LEN], cpumask[MAX_NR_CPUS]; > > >       struct domain_info *domain_info; > > >       struct cpu_domain_map **cd_map; > > > -    char dname[16], cpumask[256]; > > > -    char cpulist[1024]; > > > +    char cpulist[MAX_NR_CPUS]; > > >       char *line = NULL; > > >       u32 cpu, domain; > > >       u32 dcount = 0; > > > > Looking at > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260119175833.340369-3-swapnil.sapkal@amd.com/ > > > > There was one more "char cpus[1024]"  in tools/perf/util/util.c. > > You may need to fix that too. It is unlikely but, if one has created > > exclusive > > cpusets comprising of only one cpu from a core, maybe you will run out > > the length. > > So better use the MAX_NR_CPUS there as well. > > Yes, I missed this. > > Arnaldo, can you please consider the below diff? Let me know if you'd like > me to respin the patch. > > -- > Thanks and Regards, > Swapnil > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/util.c b/tools/perf/util/util.c > index c83e59e8c787..3795d5182ce8 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/util.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/util.c > @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ void cpumask_to_cpulist(char *cpumask, char *cpulist) > int i, j, bm_size, nbits; > int len = strlen(cpumask); > unsigned long *bm; > - char cpus[1024]; > + char cpus[MAX_NR_CPUS]; > > for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { > if (cpumask[i] == ',') { > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/util.h b/tools/perf/util/util.h > index 394dbfa944ac..c43f17137efd 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/util.h > +++ b/tools/perf/util/util.h > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > /* glibc 2.20 deprecates _BSD_SOURCE in favour of _DEFAULT_SOURCE */ > #define _DEFAULT_SOURCE 1 > > +#include "perf.h" Why add it to util.h? I'll add it to where it is used, util.c, ok? - Arnaldo > #include > #include > #include