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 08:58:41 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH tip 0/5] tracing filters with BPF

(2013/12/06 14:19), Jovi Zhangwei wrote:
> Hi Alexei,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you do some performance comparison compared to e.g. ktap?
>>>> How much faster is it?
>>
>> Did simple ktap test with 1M alloc_skb/kfree_skb toy test from earlier email:
>> trace skb:kfree_skb {
>>         if (arg2 == 0x100) {
>>                 printf("%x %x\n", arg1, arg2)
>>         }
>> }
>> 1M skb alloc/free 350315 (usecs)
>>
>> baseline without any tracing:
>> 1M skb alloc/free 145400 (usecs)
>>
>> then equivalent bpf test:
>> void filter(struct bpf_context *ctx)
>> {
>>         void *loc = (void *)ctx->regs.dx;
>>         if (loc == 0x100) {
>>                 struct sk_buff *skb = (struct sk_buff *)ctx->regs.si;
>>                 char fmt[] = "skb %p loc %p\n";
>>                 bpf_trace_printk(fmt, sizeof(fmt), (long)skb, (long)loc, 0);
>>         }
>> }
>> 1M skb alloc/free 183214 (usecs)
>>
>> so with one 'if' condition the difference ktap vs bpf is 350-145 vs 183-145
>>
>> obviously ktap is an interpreter, so it's not really fair.
>>
>> To make it really unfair I did:
>> trace skb:kfree_skb {
>>         if (arg2 == 0x100 || arg2 == 0x200 || arg2 == 0x300 || arg2 == 0x400 ||
>>             arg2 == 0x500 || arg2 == 0x600 || arg2 == 0x700 || arg2 == 0x800 ||
>>             arg2 == 0x900 || arg2 == 0x1000) {
>>                 printf("%x %x\n", arg1, arg2)
>>         }
>> }
>> 1M skb alloc/free 484280 (usecs)
>>
>> and corresponding bpf:
>> void filter(struct bpf_context *ctx)
>> {
>>         void *loc = (void *)ctx->regs.dx;
>>         if (loc == 0x100 || loc == 0x200 || loc == 0x300 || loc == 0x400 ||
>>             loc == 0x500 || loc == 0x600 || loc == 0x700 || loc == 0x800 ||
>>             loc == 0x900 || loc == 0x1000) {
>>                 struct sk_buff *skb = (struct sk_buff *)ctx->regs.si;
>>                 char fmt[] = "skb %p loc %p\n";
>>                 bpf_trace_printk(fmt, sizeof(fmt), (long)skb, (long)loc, 0);
>>         }
>> }
>> 1M skb alloc/free 185660 (usecs)
>>
>> the difference is bigger now: 484-145 vs 185-145
>>
> There have big differences for compare arg2(in ktap) with direct register
> access(ctx->regs.dx).
> 
> The current argument fetching(arg2 in above testcase) implementation in ktap
> is very inefficient, see ktap/interpreter/lib_kdebug.c:kp_event_getarg.
> The only way to speedup is kernel tracing code change, let external tracing
> module access event field not through list lookup. This work is not
> started yet. :)

I'm not sure why you can't access it directly from ftrace-event buffer.
There is just a packed data structure and it is exposed via debugfs.
You can decode it and can get an offset/size by using libtraceevent.

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/