linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Stupid tracepoint ideas

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: <20090420191755.GA15571@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:17:55 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	mingo@...dmis.org, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Stupid tracepoint ideas


* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> Mathieu,
> 
> You may have tried this in your creation of tracepoints, but I figured I 
> would ask before wasting too much time on it.
> 
> I'm looking at ways to make tracepoints even lighter weight when disabled. 
> And I thought of doing section code. I'm playing with the following idea 
> (see below patch) but I'm afraid gcc is allowed to think that the code it 
> produces will not move to different sections.
> 
> Any thoughts on how we could do something similar to this.
> 
> Note, this patch is purely proof-of-concept. I'm fully aware that it is an 
> x86 solution only.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> [ no Signed-off-by: because this patch is crap ]
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint.h b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> index 4353f3f..6953f78 100644
> --- a/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> @@ -65,9 +65,18 @@ struct tracepoint {
>  	extern struct tracepoint __tracepoint_##name;			\
>  	static inline void trace_##name(proto)				\
>  	{								\
> -		if (unlikely(__tracepoint_##name.state))		\
> +		if (unlikely(__tracepoint_##name.state)) {		\
> +			asm volatile ("jmp 43f\n"			\
> +				      "42:\n"				\
> +				      ".section .unlikely,\"ax\"\n"	\
> +				      "43:\n"				\
> +				      ::: "memory");			\
>  			__DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name,		\
> -				TP_PROTO(proto), TP_ARGS(args));	\
> +				   TP_PROTO(proto), TP_ARGS(args));	\
> +			asm volatile ("jmp 42b\n"			\
> +			     ".previous\n"				\
> +			     ::: "memory");				\
> +		}							\
>  	}								\
>  	static inline int register_trace_##name(void (*probe)(proto))	\

does this boot fine? If yes then it would be nice to have a 
measurement.

	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/