| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1371227208.9844.333.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:26:48 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
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: Re: ftrace multibuffer && rcu (Was: tracing/uprobes: Support
ftrace_event_file base multibuffer)
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 18:04 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
But is that really an issue? event_mutex is used to add or remove
events, and this happens only when we load or unload a module, or add or
remove a probe. These are mostly user operations that take a relatively
long time to complete (but not relative to humans).
>
> 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;
I'd like to keep this struct as small as possible, as it is created for
every event we have. And there's already over 900 events and it is
constantly growing.
Of course one can argue that it's still a relatively small number.
> };
>
> +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;
> +}
I don't see where this is used.
> +
> +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);
This would have to be used by module unloading as well.
Again, is it really a big deal if we do synchronize_sched() under the
event_mutex. It's not a critical lock.
-- Steve
> }
> }
>
> +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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists