linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2

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]

Date:	Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:25:34 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2


* Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@...hat.com> wrote:

> Hi -
> 
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:37:59AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > [...]
> > struct task_struct::utrace became embedded struct. This is good and
> > should remove quite a few of utrace bugs. Better late than never.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> > However, "rewrite-ptrace-via-utrace" patch was omitted, so 
> > almost noone can easily see by how much situation improved. 
> > [...]  Will ptrace(2) will be rewritten through utrace?
> 
> Yes, I believe that is Roland's intent.  I believe it was 
> separated from the current suite of patches for staging purposes, 
> to merge the most solid code up first.  The code is available from 
> the utrace git tree in the utrace-ptrace branch.

i think they should be submitted together.

Here's the histogram of utrace bugs on kerneloops.org:

  2.6.27.5          1 x
  2.6.27.15         1 x
  2.6.27.12         2 x
  2.6.27-rc4        2 x
  2.6.26.6          1 x
  2.6.26.5         43 x
  2.6.26.3       1102 x
  2.6.26.2          2 x
  2.6.26.1          3 x
  2.6.26            1 x
  2.6.25            3 x

That peak in 2.6.26.3 is what i referred to. The latest F10 kernel 
rpm is kernel-2.6.27.12-170.2.5.fc10, and it does include the 
utrace-ptrace engine as well:

  # grep UTRACE /boot/config-2.6.27.19-170.2.35.fc10.i686
  CONFIG_UTRACE=y
  CONFIG_UTRACE_PTRACE=y

So the bug i referred to was fixed and the bug count has gone down - 
but still we have the utrace core submission here without any 
(tested) mainline kernel usage of the core code.

My suggestion would be to:

 - submit the ptrace-on-utrace engine as well (with Oleg's signoff?)

 - perhaps also submit with a well-tested ftrace plugin that tries 
   to utilize _all_ aspects of utrace and ftrace (and hence gives 
   good and continuous burn-in testing via the ftrace bootup 
   self-tests, etc.)

ideally we want both, because:

 - tracing corner-case bugs tend to be found much faster than ptrace
   corner case bugs - partly because tracing is much more invasive
   when activated system-wide.

 - ptrace-over-utrace on the other hand utilizes utrace more deeply
   than passive tracing ever can. (for example UML does full,
   active virtualization via ptrace - this depth of functional
   utrace usage is not possible via a tracing plugin.)

And i think the ptrace-via-utrace engine is actually fully ready, 
just perhaps it was not submitted out of caution to keep the 
logistics simple.

So i do think we've still got a shot at merging it, in this merge 
window.

        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/