linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing/syscalls: core infrastructure for syscalls tracing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090314205105.b67bdb6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:51:05 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>,
	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
	Michael Davidson <md@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing/syscalls: core infrastructure for
 syscalls tracing

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:42:11 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> +void start_ftrace_syscalls(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct task_struct *g, *t;
> +
> +	if (atomic_inc_return(&refcount) != 1)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	arch_init_ftrace_syscalls();
> +	read_lock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> +
> +	do_each_thread(g, t) {
> +		set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SYSCALL_FTRACE);
> +	} while_each_thread(g, t);
> +
> +	read_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> +out:
> +	atomic_dec(&refcount);
> +}
> +
> +void stop_ftrace_syscalls(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct task_struct *g, *t;
> +
> +	if (atomic_dec_return(&refcount))
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	read_lock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> +
> +	do_each_thread(g, t) {
> +		clear_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SYSCALL_FTRACE);
> +	} while_each_thread(g, t);
> +
> +	read_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklist_lock, flags);
> +out:
> +	atomic_inc(&refcount);
> +}

What is this `refcount' thing trying to do?  afacit it does not prevent the
two loops from running concurrently and making a mess.

If it _is_ trying to prevent that from happening, then why not use plain old
mutex_lock()?

If the code is or some reason correct then it certainly is not sufficiently
obvious to be let uncommented.

--
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/