linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: add missing block_bio

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: <4F278A78.8080300@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:30:16 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: add missing block_bio_complete() tracepoint

Hi,

2012-01-31 2:05 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:38:57PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> 2012-01-29 6:41 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> The block_bio_complete() TP has been missed so long, so that bio-based
>>> drivers haven't been able to trace its IO behavior. Add it.
>>>
>>> In some rare cases, such as loop_switch, @bio->bi_bdev can be NULL.
>>> Thus convert it to TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION() as Steven suggested.
>>>
>>
>> Now I see that it seems TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION() can protect event
>> tracing from such condition, but what about other users of the TP
>> like blktrace? I think it'll still get NULL pointer dereference on
>> bdev_get_queue() after the change, right? If so, convert to T_E_C()
>> looks meaningless IMHO. Do I miss something?
>
> Not really following, but the whole point of using
> TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION() is avoiding the conditional jump when the TP
> is disabled.  Whether the TP users need to test again / more isn't too
> important.
>
> Thanks.
>

Right, but the point is it could make a NULL pointer dereference during 
evaluation of the argument of the TP AFAICS. I'm not sure about the TP 
implementation though, I think I was wrong - T_E_C() cannot protect us 
from it because it happens just before jumping to the TP, right?

So I think we need a conditional jump (with the "likely" annotation) for 
this even when the TP is disabled.

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/