linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17

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]

Message-ID: <20060920133834.GB17032@Krystal>
Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:38:34 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc:	Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...s.ku.edu>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
	Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, ltt-dev@...fik.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.2 for Linux 2.6.17

* Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@...hat.com) wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> > > [...]  For the static part of the instrumentation, a
> > > marker that could be hooked up to either type of probing system was
> > > desirable, which implies some sort of run-time changeability.
> > 
> > Ok. So if I get what you're saying here, you'd like to be able to
> > overload a marker? 
> 
> Sort of.  Remember, we discussed markers as *marking* places and
> things, with the intent that they be decoupled from the actual
> *action* that is taken when the marker is hit.
> 
> > Can you suggest a macro that can do what you'd like. [...]
> 
> Compare the kind of marker I showed at OLS and presently supported by
> systemtap.  Its unparametrized version looks like this:
> 
> #define STAP_MARK(name) do { \
>    static void (*__mark_##name##_)(); \
>    if (unlikely (__mark_##name##_)) \
>    (void) (__mark_##name##_()); \
> } while (0)
> 
> A tracing/probing tool would hook up to a particular and specific
> marker at run time by locating the __mark_NAME static variable (a
> function pointer) in the data segment, for example using the ordinary
> symbol table, and swapping into it the address of a compatible
> back-end handler function.  When a particular tracing/probing session
> ends, the function pointer is reset to null.
> 
> Note that this technique:
> 
> - operates at run time
> - is portable
> - in its parametrized variants, is type-safe
> - does not require any future technology
> - does impose some overhead even when a marker is not active
> 
> 
Hi Frank,

Yes, I think there is much to gain to switch from the 5 nops "jumpprobe" to
this scheme. In its parametrized variant, the jump will probably jump over a
stack setup and function call. Do you think I should simply switch from the
5 nops marker to this technique ? I guess the performance impact of a
predicted branch will be similar to 5 nops anyway...

The clear advantage I see in the parametrized variant is that the parameters
will be ready for the called function : it makes it trivial to access any
variable from the traced function.

Mathieu


OpenPGP public key:              http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint:     8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)