linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Fix call-chain support to use NMI-safe methods

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: <4A36C953.8060906@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:21:07 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	vegard.nossum@...il.com, efault@....de, jeremy@...p.org,
	npiggin@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Fix call-chain	support
 to use NMI-safe methods

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com) wrote:
>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> As the maintainer of the out-of-tree LTTng tracer, which hooks in the
>>> page fault handler with tracepoints, and which can build almost entirely
>>> as modules, I am very tempted to argue that having the nmi-code entirely
>>> robust wrt in-kernel page faults would be a very-nice-to-have feature.
>>>
>> I doubt that is ever going to be reliable, due to reentrancy issues.
>>
>> 	-hpa
> 
> Do you mean the page fault handler code is no ever going to be reliable
> or the tracer code ?
> 
> I spent a great deal of effort making LTTng lockless and reentrant wrt
> NMIs. It would be great if the low-level kernel exception handlers would
> do the same, therefore I would not have to isolate the tracer from the
> kernel as I currently do. Well, I would still continue to isolate the
> tracer from the kernel, but at least I would not have to spend as much
> effort controlling what exceptions and faults paths the tracer is
> executing.
> 

So instead you want to core kernel to do your work for you?

	-hpa

--
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/