linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

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: <20100118124419.GC1628@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:14:19 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ananth@...ibm.com,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
	Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> [2010-01-18 14:17:10]:

> On 01/18/2010 02:13 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >So how big chunks of the address space are we talking here for uprobes?
> 
> That's for the authors to answer, but at a guess, 32 bytes per probe
> (largest x86 instruction is 15 bytes), so 32 MB will give you a
> million probes.  That's a piece of cake for x86-64, probably harder
> to justify for i386.

On x86, each probe takes 16 bytes. 
In the current implementation of XOL, the first hit of a breakpoint,
requires us to allocate a page. If that page does get full with "active"
breakpoints, we expand / add a page. There is a bit map that keeps a
check to see if a previously used breakpoint is removed and hence that
slot can be reused.  By active breakpoints, I refer to those that are
inserted, and has been trapped atleast once but not yet removed.

Jim did try a few other allocation techniques but those that involved
slot stealing did end up having locking. People who did look at that
code did advise us to reduce the locking and keep the allocation simple
(atleast for the first cut).

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar

> 
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
> 
--
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/