linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] perf/sdt: Add support to perf record to trace SDT events

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:	Thu, 06 Nov 2014 14:33:49 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>
Cc:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Hemant Kumar <hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com,
	hegdevasant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	systemtap@...rceware.org, aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	penberg@....fi, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] perf/sdt: Add support to perf record to
 trace SDT events

(2014/11/06 11:15), Josh Stone wrote:
> On 11/05/2014 01:05 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> [Off topic] I really don't like that the current SDT's semaphore. If the user apps
>> see the instruction at the probe point, it is easy to check whether the event is
>> enabled or not. Thus I recommend to change its implementation and update version
>> instead of supporting current semaphore by perftools.
> 
> You and I have banged heads on this before, but I don't think checking
> the instruction is a simple as you seem to think.  I invite you to
> prototype this, and if you get it working we can discuss the tradeoffs.

Would you have the prototype? I'd like to look :)

> The good news is that other tools (stap and gdb) won't need to care.  If
> the SDT semaphore goes automatic, then we can just set that note field
> to zero, unused from the tool's perspective.
> 
> Another tactic is to just discourage developers from using the semaphore
> in the first place, as it's a completely optional feature.  The marker
> is just a NOP, so adding some "if (enabled) {...}" around it is often a
> useless load and branch.  It does make sense if the probe wants to
> provide some expensively-computed arguments though, like cpython does to
> prepare a function name string.  So if you see a project testing the
> semaphore around simple arguments, I'd suggest they just probe directly
> instead.

I see, and we did that on qemu. I consider that someone maybe use
it in the future unless we remove it. If we can succeed to discourage
people using semaphore, we also should remove it.

Thank you,


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research 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/