linux-kernel - Re: [patch] add /proc/pid/stack to dump task's stack trace

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: <20081107083249.GD4435@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:32:49 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [patch] add /proc/pid/stack to dump task's stack trace


* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:59:25AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > + * buffer size used for proc read.  See proc_info_read().
> > > > > + * 4K page size but our output routines use some slack for overruns
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +#define PROC_BLOCK_SIZE	(3*1024)
> > > 
> > > That sounds like a proper limit - the hard limit for this particular 
> > > printout function is 4096-170, so we are well within the 
> > > PROC_BLOCK_SIZE range.
> > 
> > ok, i've added Ken's patch to tip/core/stacktrace and started testing 
> > it.
> > 
> > Alexey, i've added your Acked-by because you appeared to like the 
> > patch - let me know if i should remove it.
> 
> Of course, I don't like it!
> 
> Switch to seqfiles, add entry in TID table as well.
>
> The idea is good, though.

oh well - Ken, could you please switch it to seqfiles?

It should be something like this to convert the currently sweet and 
trivial function into a much more complex seqfile iterator splitup:

- the ::start method does the kmalloc of a loop state structure like 
  this:

  {
	struct stack_trace backtrace;
	unsigned long entries[MAX_STACK_TRACE_DEPTH];

	int iterator;
  }

  and saves the trace. (struct stack_trace trace can be on-stack, it's 
  only needed for the save_stack_trace() - and we keep the entries 
  after that.)

- the ::stop method does the kfree of the loop state.

- the ::show method prints a single line, based on ->entries[->iterator]

- the ::next method does ->iterator++, and returns NULL if iterator 
  reaches ->backtrace.nr_entries.

it will be more source code, larger kernel image, it will be more 
fragile and will be harder to review, and it wont actually matter in 
practice because 99.9999% of the backtraces we care about have a size 
smaller than 3K. (and where they get larger clipping them to the first 
3K is perfectly fine)

	Ingo
--
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/