linux-kernel - Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs

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: <20140212074036.4c6105b5@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:40:36 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 3.14-rc2 XFS backtrace because irqs_disabled.

[ Added the perf tracepoint maintainers ]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:59:58 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, just creating lots of files with open(O_CREAT):
> >
> > [  348.718357] fs_mark (4828) used greatest stack depth: 2968 bytes left
> > [  348.769846] fs_mark (4814) used greatest stack depth: 2312 bytes left
> > [  349.777717] fs_mark (4826) used greatest stack depth: 2280 bytes left
> > [  418.139415] fs_mark (4928) used greatest stack depth: 1936 bytes left
> > [  460.492282] fs_mark (4993) used greatest stack depth: 1336 bytes left
> > [  544.825418] fs_mark (5104) used greatest stack depth: 1112 bytes left
> > [  689.503970] fs_mark (5265) used greatest stack depth: 1000 bytes left
> >
> > We've got absolutely no spare stack space anymore in the IO path.
> > And the IO path can't get much simpler than filesystem -> virtio
> > block device.
> 
> Ugh, that's bad. A thousand bytes of stack space is much too close to
> any limits.
> 
> Do you have the stack traces for these things so that we can look at
> worst offenders?
> 
> If the new block-mq code is to blame, it needs to be fixed.
> __virtblk_add_req() has a 300-byte stack frame, it seems. Looking
> elsewhere, blkdev_issue_discard() has 350 bytes of stack frame, but is
> hopefully not in any normal path - online discard is moronic, and I'm
> assuming XFS doesn't do that.
> 
> There's a lot of 200+ byte stack frames in block/blk-core.s, and they
> all seem to be of the type perf_trace_block_buffer() - things created
> with DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(), afaik. Why they all have 200+ bytes of
> frame, I have no idea. That sounds like a potential disaster too,
> although hopefully it's mostly leaf functions - but leaf functions
> *deep* in the callchain. Tejun? Steven, why _do_ they end up with such
> huge frames?

The perf_trace_##event is defined in include/trace/ftrace.h.

There we have this:

perf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto)					\
{									\
	struct ftrace_event_call *event_call = __data;			\
	struct ftrace_data_offsets_##call __maybe_unused __data_offsets;\
	struct ftrace_raw_##call *entry;				\
	struct pt_regs __regs;						\
	u64 __addr = 0, __count = 1;					\
	struct task_struct *__task = NULL;				\
	struct hlist_head *head;					\
	int __entry_size;						\
	int __data_size;						\
	int rctx;							\
									\

Mostly pointers except for two structures. The __data_offests, is
dynamically defined, and only consists of values from the tracepoint
entry_structure that defines dynamic arrays. But the other structure on
the stack looks a bit harrier. The pt_regs structure.

That's what? 21 unsigned longs? 21 * 8 = 168. I think that's the
culprit here.

Peter and Frederic, is there a way not to store that on the stack?

-- Steve

> 
> And if the stack use comes from the VFS layer, we can probably work on
> that too. But I don't think that has really changed much lately..
> 
>                 Linus

--
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/