linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC PATCH tip 0/5] tracing filters with BPF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 07 Dec 2013 08:54:37 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH tip 0/5] tracing filters with BPF

(2013/12/06 14:16), Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>>> the difference is bigger now: 484-145 vs 185-145
>>
>> This is a obvious improvement, but imho not big enough to be extremely
>> compelling (< cost 1-2 cache misses, no orders of magnitude improvements
>> that would justify a lot of code)
> 
> hmm. we're comparing against ktap here…
> which has 5x more kernel code and 8x slower in this test...
> 
>> Your code requires a compiler, so from my perspective it
>> wouldn't be a lot easier or faster to use than just changing
>> the code directly and recompile.
>>
>> The users want something simple too that shields them from
>> having to learn all the internals. They don't want to recompile.
>> As far as I can tell your code is a bit too low level for that,
>> and the requirement for the compiler may also scare them.
>>
>> Where exactly does it fit?
> 
> the goal is to have llvm compiler next to perf, wrapped in a user friendly way.
> 
> compiling small filter vs recompiling full kernel…
> inserting into live kernel vs rebooting …
> not sure how you're saying it's equivalent.
> 
> In my kernel debugging experience current tools (tracing, systemtap)
> were rarely enough.
> I always had to add my own printks through the code, recompile and reboot.
> Often just to see that it's not the place where I want to print things
> or it's too verbose.
> Then I would adjust printks, recompile and reboot again.
> That was slow and tedious, since I would be crashing things from time to time
> just because skb doesn't always have a valid dev or I made a typo.
> For debugging I do really need something quick and dirty that lets me
> add my own printk
> of whatever structs I want anywhere in the kernel without crashing it.
> That's exactly what bpf tracing filters do.

I recommend you to use perf-probe. That will give you an easy solution. :)


Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/