linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.13 for 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:05:14 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	prasanna@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
	Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers 0.13 for 2.6.17

* Frank Ch. Eigler (fche@...hat.com) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org> writes:
> 
> > [...]
> > > Yep, that looks reasonable.  Though you could just directly test a 
> > > per-marker enable flag, rather than using "condition"...
> > [...]
> > I am not sure I understand your suggestion correctly.. do you mean having
> > a per-marker flag that would be loaded and tested at every marker site ?
> 
> I gather that one reason for working so hard with the inline assembly
> is a race condition problem with the plain STAP_MARK style of marker
> disconnection:
> 
>         if (pointer) (*pointer)(args ...);
> 
> Granted, but this problem could almost certainly be dealt with simpler
> than that.  How about a compxchg or other atomic-fetch of the static
> pointer with a local variable?  That should solve the worry of an
> (*NULL) call.
> 

I don't really see how cmpxchg might be needed here.

Atomic fetch of a static variable is how I will do it in my next version for the
non optimized case :

volatile static var = 0;
if(var) {
  preempt disable
  call
  preempt_enable_no_resched
}

But, still, in the optimized case, the if(var) will depend on an immediate
value, therefore saving the memory read.


> If we then become concerned with a valid pointer become obsolete (the
> probe handler function wanting to unload), we might be able to use
> some RCU-type deferral mechanism and/or preempt controls to ensure
> that this does not happen.
> 

This is exactly why the preemption is disabled around the call. However, RCU
must always _see_ a coherent version of the structure in memory.

Calling an empty function, disabling preemption around the call and calling
synchronize_sched() before deleting the removed function looks very much like
a RCU-style protection (actually, that's what it is).

Mathieu


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