Date:	Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:27:13 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD] perf syscall error handling


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:16:36PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > So would something simple, like an offset into the struct 
> > > perf_event_attr pointing at the current field we're trying 
> > > to process make sense? Maybe with negative offsets to 
> > > indicate the syscall arguments?
> > > 
> > > That would narrow down the 'WTF is wrong noaw' a lot I 
> > > think. But then, I've not actually done a lot of userspace 
> > > the last few years, so maybe I'm just dreaming things.
> > 
> > well, as someone who spends a lot of time in userspace trying 
> > to help people who report probems like 'perf_event_open() 
> > returns EINVAL, what's wrong' I can say pretty much anything 
> > will be an improvement.
> 
> Right, the situation is dire indeed :/
> 
> > What would really help is if we could somehow return the 
> > filename/line-number of whatever source code file that's 
> > setting errno.
> > 
> > Even if perf_event_open() told me that hey, we're getting 
> > EOPNOTSUPP due to the precise_ip parameter (something that 
> > happened just yesterday) it's still a lot of grepping and 
> > poking around source files to find out what's going on.  It 
> > would be much better if it just told me the issue was at 
> > kernel/events/core.c line 995 or so, but I'm not sure how you 
> > could pass that back to the user, and one could argue it 
> > wouldn't help much the average user without a kernel tree 
> > lying around.
> 
> Would an additional bit mask help? With that we'd be able to 
> finger the exact flag that causes pain.

Well, I don't really like bitmasks nor __LINE__/__FILE__ 
obscurity, those are non-starters because they are user 
unfriendly.

What would work best is something like:

 - user-space could request 'extended error code' passing from
   kernel to user-space via a (default off) feature bit in 
   perf_attr, plus a user-space provided pointer to a string 
   buffer, and a maximum length value.

 - old user-space or user-space that does not want it would not
   be unaffected by the new 'extended error code' facility

 - user-space gets back the regular errno (-EOPNOTSUPP or -ENOSYS
   or -EINVAL, etc.) and a string. Strings are really the most 
   helpful information, because tools can just print that. They 
   can also match on specific strings and programmatically react 
   to them if they want to: we can promise to not arbitrarily 
   change error strings once they are introduced. (but even if 
   they change, user-space can still print them out.)

 - in the kernel, instead of doing:

	return -EOPNOTSUPP;

   we'd do something like:

	return perf_errno(-EOPNOTSUPP, "BTS not supported by this CPU architecture");

   here the kernel would in the regular case just ignore the 
   string, but if user-space requested the 'extended errno' 
   facility, it would copy the (zero-delimited) error string to
   perf_attr->errno_str, taking errno_len into account.

   If no extended string was written then user-space can detect 
   this through the string not having been written to. (it can 
   initialize it to a zero string.)

Note the various advantages of this approach:

 - it's hard to get the facility wrong on the user-space side: in 
   the simplest usage user-space simply prints out the error, 
   which will be obvious to the user in most cases.

 - it's hard to get it wrong on the kernel side: it's really 
   similar to what we do today, plus a descriptive error string. 
   Developers should take care to use descriptive and unique 
   messages (but even duplicate messages will help in informing 
   the user).

 - it's infinitely extensible, does not involve magic numbers nor
   ever changing __LINE__ numbers and obscure source code file
   names.

 - it's really _easy_ to add good error information on the kernel
   side: just add a perf_err() string passing method instead of a
   dumb return -EINVAL. Also, the information is in a single
   place, exactly where the problem occurs, so it will be easily
   maintainable going forward.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists