linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/05] Linux Kernel Markers, non optimised architectures

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: <45A71827.6020300@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:09:59 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com,
	Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...s.ku.edu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/05] Linux Kernel Markers, non optimised architectures

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Nick Piggin (nickpiggin@...oo.com.au) wrote:
> 
>>Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>+#define MARK(name, format, args...) \
>>>+	do { \
>>>+		static marker_probe_func *__mark_call_##name = \
>>>+					__mark_empty_function; \
>>>+		volatile static char __marker_enable_##name = 0; \
>>>+		static const struct __mark_marker_c __mark_c_##name \
>>>+			__attribute__((section(".markers.c"))) = \
>>>+			{ #name, &__mark_call_##name, format } ; \
>>>+		static const struct __mark_marker __mark_##name \
>>>+			__attribute__((section(".markers"))) = \
>>>+			{ &__mark_c_##name, &__marker_enable_##name } ; \
>>>+		asm volatile ( "" : : "i" (&__mark_##name)); \
>>>+		__mark_check_format(format, ## args); \
>>>+		if (unlikely(__marker_enable_##name)) { \
>>>+			preempt_disable(); \
>>>+			(*__mark_call_##name)(format, ## args); \
>>>+			preempt_enable_no_resched(); \
>>
>>Why not just preempt_enable() here?
>>
> 
> 
> Because the preempt_enable() macro contains preempt_check_resched(), which
> may call preempt_schedule() which leads us to a call to schedule(). Therefore,
> all those very interesting scheduler functions would cause an infinite
> recursive scheduler call if we marked schedule() and used preempt_enable() in
> the marker.

The vast majority of schedule() has preempt turned off, so that shouldn't
be a problem, if you provide a comment.

> The primary goal for the markers (and the probes that attaches to them) is to
> have the fewest side-effects possible : any kernel method called from an
> instrumentation site adds this precise kernel method to the "cannot be
> instrumented" list, which I want to keep as small possible.

OK, well one problem is that it can cause a resched event to be lost, so
you might say it has more side-effects without checking resched.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.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/