linux-kernel - ftrace multibuffer && rcu (Was: tracing/uprobes: Support ftrace_event

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: <20130614160456.GA14726@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:04:56 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: ftrace multibuffer && rcu (Was: tracing/uprobes: Support
	ftrace_event_file base multibuffer)

On 06/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > -probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag, filter_func_t filter)
> > +probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, struct ftrace_event_file *file,
> > +		   filter_func_t filter)
> >  {
> > +	int enabled = 0;
> >  	int ret = 0;
> >
> > +	mutex_lock(&uprobe_enable_lock);
>
> Do we really need this? Can't we really on mutex_event hold by the caller?

Looks like, kprobes do not need probe_enable_lock too.

Steven, Masami, I just looked at this new multibuffer code. Not sure
I really understand it, but it seems that ftrace_event_file should
help its users.

Lets look at enable_trace_probe(). Firstly, "ftrace_event_file **files"
and the add/remove code doesn't look very nice, list_head looks more
convenient.

But the main problem is, synchronize_sched() is slow and it is called
under the global event_mutex.

So perhaps something like below (untested) makes sense? With this patch
we can trivially convert trace_kprobe.c to use list_add/del/each_rcu.

What do you think?

Oleg.


--- a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
+++ b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
@@ -294,8 +294,32 @@ struct ftrace_event_file {
 	 */
 	unsigned long		flags;
 	atomic_t		sm_ref;	/* soft-mode reference counter */
+	atomic_t		refcnt;
+	struct rcu_head		rcu;
 };
 
+struct event_file_link {
+	struct ftrace_event_file	*file;
+	struct list_head		list;
+	struct rcu_head			rcu;
+};
+
+extern void rcu_free_event_file_link(struct rcu_head *rcu);
+
+static inline struct event_file_link *
+alloc_event_file_link(struct ftrace_event_file *file)
+{
+	struct event_file_link *link = kmalloc(sizeof(*link), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (link)
+		link->file = file;
+	return link;
+}
+
+static inline void free_event_file_link(struct event_file_link *link)
+{
+	call_rcu(&link->rcu, rcu_free_event_file_link);
+}
+
 #define __TRACE_EVENT_FLAGS(name, value)				\
 	static int __init trace_init_flags_##name(void)			\
 	{								\
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
@@ -1542,6 +1542,7 @@ trace_create_new_event(struct ftrace_event_call *call,
 	file->event_call = call;
 	file->tr = tr;
 	atomic_set(&file->sm_ref, 0);
+	atomic_set(&file->refcnt, 1);
 	list_add(&file->list, &tr->events);
 
 	return file;
@@ -2182,6 +2183,17 @@ __trace_early_add_events(struct trace_array *tr)
 	}
 }
 
+static void put_event_file(struct ftrace_event_file *file)
+{
+	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&file->refcnt))
+		kmem_cache_free(file_cachep, file);
+}
+
+static void delayed_put_event_file(struct rcu_head *rcu)
+{
+	put_event_file(container_of(rcu, struct ftrace_event_file, rcu));
+}
+
 /* Remove the event directory structure for a trace directory. */
 static void
 __trace_remove_event_dirs(struct trace_array *tr)
@@ -2192,10 +2204,18 @@ __trace_remove_event_dirs(struct trace_array *tr)
 		list_del(&file->list);
 		debugfs_remove_recursive(file->dir);
 		remove_subsystem(file->system);
-		kmem_cache_free(file_cachep, file);
+		call_rcu(&file->rcu, delayed_put_event_file);
 	}
 }
 
+void rcu_free_event_file_link(struct rcu_head *rcu)
+{
+	struct event_file_link *link =
+			container_of(rcu, struct event_file_link, rcu);
+	put_event_file(link->file);
+	kfree(link);
+}
+
 static void
 __add_event_to_tracers(struct ftrace_event_call *call,
 		       struct ftrace_module_file_ops *file_ops)

--
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/