| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:02:02 +0800
From: "zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v5 typo updated] tracing/uprobes: Support ftrace_event_file
base multibuffer
On 2013/7/4 15:41, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Jovi,
>
> Just a few of dummy questions..
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 15:01:10 +0800, zhangwei wrote:
>> Support multi-buffer on uprobe-based dynamic events by
>> using ftrace_event_file.
>>
>> This patch is based kprobe-based dynamic events multibuffer
>> support work initially, commited by Masami(commit 41a7dd420c),
>> but revised as below:
>>
>> Oleg changed the kprobe-based multibuffer design from
>> array-pointers of ftrace_event_file into simple list,
>> so this patch also change to the list design.
>>
>> rcu_read_lock/unlock added into uprobe_trace_func/uretprobe_trace_func,
>> to synchronize with ftrace_event_file list add and delete.
>>
>> Even though we allow multi-uprobes instances now,
>> but TP_FLAG_PROFILE/TP_FLAG_TRACE are still mutually exclusive
>> in probe_event_enable currently, this means we cannot allow
>> one user is using uprobe-tracer, and another user is using
>> perf-probe on same uprobe concurrently.
>> (Perhaps this will be fix in future, kprobe dont't have this
>> limitation now)
>
> So why does this limitation exist? Didn't we support this kind of thing
> in the original code?
>
Yes, it existed(maybe not exist before uprobe pre-filter work), because uprobe filter
is associated with trace_uprobe tightly at present, so we cannot assign
TP_FLAG_PROFILE/TP_FLAG_TRACE for same trace_uprobe with different filter.
Perhaps we need to remove the limitation in future.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: zhangwei(Jovi) <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>
>> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
>> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
> [SNIP]
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + list_for_each_entry(link, &tu->files, list)
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu() ?
>
I haven't noticed this, thanks, I will update it.
>
>> + uprobe_trace_print(tu, 0, regs, link->file);
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> +
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static void uretprobe_trace_func(struct trace_uprobe *tu, unsigned long func,
>> struct pt_regs *regs)
>> {
>> - uprobe_trace_print(tu, func, regs);
>> + struct event_file_link *link;
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + list_for_each_entry(link, &tu->files, list)
>
> Ditto.
>
>
>> + uprobe_trace_print(tu, func, regs, link->file);
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> }
> [SNIP]
>> -static void probe_event_disable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag)
>> +static struct event_file_link *
>> +find_event_file_link(struct trace_uprobe *tu, struct ftrace_event_file *file)
>> +{
>> + struct event_file_link *link;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(link, &tu->files, list)
>
> Not sure of this case. ;)
>
Yes, _rcu is not needed in here, it's only called in event disable serialized case.
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
>> + if (link->file == file)
>> + return link;
>> +
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void
>> +probe_event_disable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, struct ftrace_event_file *file)
>> {
>> if (!is_trace_uprobe_enabled(tu))
>> return;
>>
>> + if (file) {
>> + struct event_file_link *link;
>> +
>> + link = find_event_file_link(tu, file);
>> + if (!link)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + list_del_rcu(&link->list);
>> + /* synchronize with uprobe_trace_func/uretprobe_trace_func */
>> + synchronize_sched();
>> + kfree(link);
>> +
>> + if (!list_empty(&tu->files))
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> WARN_ON(!uprobe_filter_is_empty(&tu->filter));
>>
>> uprobe_unregister(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
>> - tu->flags &= ~flag;
>> + tu->flags &= file ? ~TP_FLAG_TRACE : ~TP_FLAG_PROFILE;
>> }
>>
>> static int uprobe_event_define_fields(struct ftrace_event_call *event_call)
>> @@ -867,21 +947,22 @@ static
>> int trace_uprobe_register(struct ftrace_event_call *event, enum trace_reg type, void *data)
>> {
>> struct trace_uprobe *tu = event->data;
>> + struct ftrace_event_file *file = data;
>>
>> switch (type) {
>> case TRACE_REG_REGISTER:
>> - return probe_event_enable(tu, TP_FLAG_TRACE, NULL);
>> + return probe_event_enable(tu, file, NULL);
>>
>> case TRACE_REG_UNREGISTER:
>> - probe_event_disable(tu, TP_FLAG_TRACE);
>> + probe_event_disable(tu, file);
>> return 0;
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
>> case TRACE_REG_PERF_REGISTER:
>> - return probe_event_enable(tu, TP_FLAG_PROFILE, uprobe_perf_filter);
>> + return probe_event_enable(tu, NULL, uprobe_perf_filter);
>>
>> case TRACE_REG_PERF_UNREGISTER:
>> - probe_event_disable(tu, TP_FLAG_PROFILE);
>> + probe_event_disable(tu, NULL);
>> return 0;
>>
>> case TRACE_REG_PERF_OPEN:
>> -- 1.7.9.7
>
> .
>
--
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