linux-kernel - Re: LTTng do_page_fault vs handle_mm

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, 21 Nov 2006 20:12:00 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ltt-dev@...fik.org, mgreer@...sta.com, mlachwani@...sta.com
Subject: Re: LTTng do_page_fault vs handle_mm_fault instrumentation

Hello.

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> Instrumentation around the handle_mm_fault handler call, inside do_page_fault,
> looked to me as a good compromise : it can access the struct pt_regs, it will
> never be called from either a vmalloc fault or an erroneous page fault caused by
> the tracer itself (which of course, never happens, but who knows...). It won't,
> however, give information about some error paths in the page fault handler,
> mainly related to kernel faults. It is also a little farther from the page
> fault handler "real" entry and exit points, but I consider it a minor impact
> compared to the cost of entering the trap on currently existing architectures.

   I kept this approach mostly (note it would have been hard to change it due 
to this particular handler's structure itself) but just cleaned it up. If you 
consider that adding more markers was a bit too much, I can remove them. :-)

WBR, Sergei
-
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/