linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/9] stacktrace: implement save_stack_trace

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:	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:26:44 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	axboe@...nel.dk, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	teravest@...gle.com, slavapestov@...gle.com, ctalbott@...gle.com,
	dhsharp@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	winget@...gle.com, namhyung@...il.com,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] stacktrace: implement save_stack_trace_quick()

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:28:25AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Implement save_stack_trace_quick() which only considers the usual
> contexts (ie. thread and irq) and doesn't handle links between
> different contexts - if %current is in irq context, only backtrace in
> the irq stack is considered.

The thing I don't like is the duplication that involves not only on
stack unwinding but also on the safety checks.

What about making struct stacktrace_ops::stack() return a value
that either stops or continue the trace? In your case EOE/EOI would
be the triggering condition.

Filtering stack contexts might in fact be a desirable generic feature
overall.

At least in perf we could be interested in filtering kernel/user contexts.
And in your case in stopping after the first context. I also don't know if
we will be interested in filtering irq/exception/process stacks in the future
but I prefer to ensure we have a flexible enough interface to allow that.

So it may be a good idea to reuse the exisiting code for your needs like
a stack() return value as above. And if the post processing will be done
from userspace (which I really hope) then extend the ftrace/perf interface
to allow your quick filtering, something that can be later extended to
allow more finegrained stacktrace filtering.

> This is subset of dump_trace() done in much simpler way.  It's
> intended to be used in hot paths where the overhead of dump_trace()
> can be too heavy.

Is it? Have you found a measurable impact (outside the fact you record only
one stack).

Thanks.
--
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/