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 5981833C539; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 18:18:21 +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=1767809901; cv=none; b=J63BONA9eKKbV4z1lhP0CzhOERf4GIz/xExp7b7EQq7kiLBI/lxBfxghDFtB1TSaEQK5WEpH54vq2hHRHXyTsYa0yn9v5oF0HO54D5Jt8Oi+2987PjFKSBiSJCKM8v2ndAVjiwygwHsbdgyCDHh6q345Xjo9vycoUw0eRRP4nRE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767809901; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s27ccQFbApbt2q5ImZlGXA0T8FPFBDdt+ES6BeIF8vU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=MRHV6gymMItjNkAzBM72iegxxTgre26OKPdzIJdTPNKA787LfCscwXnLJ6kImru6p4dQ5aSdsTuHo61Y+diwD3hMzXfXCzWvzIP1zwIN1JKUBb7X4Ga0oQ4P7Q1M9Ht4UtCJ855w4JtRPMxz9wqxA+B8BahdOuvl10ITFrB7AVU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=o0mG8/Nw; 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="o0mG8/Nw" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED219C4CEF1; Wed, 7 Jan 2026 18:18:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1767809901; bh=s27ccQFbApbt2q5ImZlGXA0T8FPFBDdt+ES6BeIF8vU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=o0mG8/Nwy67GgnHYsqslR0XuIgiZ/l7XbXDcrCMMJP/NISmz953u12IaiV4MpF3Yk gmI5BGxdDGoXFnwJL1BDu4y2aOtUOY1IyRgU3/PcHPzuAYvWQE74srH1Oka/P4B8Ea bpCJuidzFFbYgXZWxrHPCjHi/yhj6r4P/zUeP+smtBhDxutrJJehNzP20oo9FHg71Z fD0QcwqMkUfLOTwfTp2gopqqYn/P+fSaSbuHX6voiThV7kVS4SQLjtvZFs85M5ahz4 9YJs7fBOIFK+sQXYC1Y0+IIL2sUllKIXaBNBYMatDDV1NAZOivAPPe93d4h19wcRE4 gDX6AtB8sl7hg== Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:18:17 -0800 From: Namhyung Kim To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Gary Guo , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Ian Rogers , Adrian Hunter , James Clark , Miguel Ojeda , Boqun Feng , =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJu?= Roy Baron , Benno Lossin , Andreas Hindborg , Alice Ryhl , Trevor Gross , Danilo Krummrich , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , Andi Kleen , Dmitry Vyukov , Stephen Brennan , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf symbol: remove Rust symbol workarounds Message-ID: References: <20260105150106.567830-1-gary@kernel.org> 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 10:38:40AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 12:04:32AM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 12:50:15PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 03:00:57PM +0000, Gary Guo wrote: > > > > Due to an off-by-one error introduced in commit 73bbb94466fd ("kallsyms: > > > > support "big" kernel symbols"), long symbols (which are currently only > > > > produced by Rust) can have their symbol type being wrongly parsed by > > > > kernel/kallsyms.c. > > > > Looks sane, applied to perf-tools-next, > > > I'm afraid there may be some outdated kernels which don't have the fix > > yet. Maybe make sense to wait some more time for them to disappear? > > Right, I took it more as it seems to be just a blip in time, something > that came and went quickly and that most likely will not cause problems, > i.e. just a handful of extra symbols in the lookup data structures in > those particular kernels and a new 'perf test' tool with these reverts, > if run on those particular kernels would then fail for that particular > test case, for a known reason. > > So with the above rationale you still feel strongly about having it > applied? No, it's good to go. Thanks for the explanation! Namhyung