| 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: <20140507171821.GA16671@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 19:18:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Richard Yao <ryao@...too.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel@...too.org, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@...l.gov>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/dumpstack: Walk frames when built with frame pointers
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> So to take your example, it might be something like this
>
> arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace+0x3c -> do_raw_spin_lock+0xb7
> -> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x35 -> ? prepare_to_wait+0x18
> -> prepare_to_wait+0x18 -> ? generic_make_request+0x80
> -> ? unmap_underlying_metadata+0x2e -> __wait_on_bit+0x20
> -> ? submit_bio+0xd2 -> out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x54
> -> ? unmap_underlying_metadata+0x2e -> ? autoremove_wake_function+0x31
> -> __wait_on_buffer+0x1b -> __ext3_get_inode_loc+0x1ef -> ext3_iget+0x45
> -> ext3_lookup+0x97 -> lookup_real+0x20 -> __lookup_hash+0x2a
> -> lookup_slow+0x36 -> path_lookupat+0xf9 -> filename_lookup+0x1f
> -> user_path_at_empty+0x3f -> user_path_at+0xd -> vfs_fstatat+0x40
> -> ? lg_local_unlock+0x31 -> vfs_stat+0x13 -> sys_stat64+0x11
> -> ? __fput+0x187 -> ? restore_all+0xf -> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0xc
> -> syscall_call+0x7
>
> which is admittedly complete line noise, but is just 13 lines rather
> than 31. That can sometimes be a really big deal.
Let me try to offer a few more mockups with different typographical
variants:
1) 'intelligently skip offsets':
arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace -> do_raw_spin_lock
-> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave -> ? prepare_to_wait
-> prepare_to_wait -> ? generic_make_request
-> ? unmap_underlying_metadata -> __wait_on_bit
-> ? submit_bio+0xd2 -> out_of_line_wait_on_bit
-> ? unmap_underlying_metadata -> ? autoremove_wake_function
-> __wait_on_buffer -> __ext3_get_inode_loc -> ext3_iget
-> ext3_lookup -> lookup_real -> __lookup_hash
-> lookup_slow -> path_lookupat -> filename_lookup
-> user_path_at_empty -> user_path_at -> vfs_fstatat
-> ? lg_local_unlock -> vfs_stat -> sys_stat64
-> ? __fput -> ? restore_all -> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk
-> syscall_call+0x7
Note how the offset is skipped intelligently, by adding an attribute
to kallsyms entries: the number of callouts in that function. For
functions that only have a single call, no offset information is
needed.
For functions that have multiple call instructions, the offset is
printed - such as the 'submit_bio+0xd2' case shows it in the mockup
above.
2) +'vertically aligned, screen split in two'
arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace -> do_raw_spin_lock
-> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave -> ? prepare_to_wait
-> prepare_to_wait -> ? generic_make_request
-> ? unmap_underlying_metadata -> __wait_on_bit
-> ? submit_bio+0xd2 -> out_of_line_wait_on_bit
-> ? unmap_underlying_metadata -> ? autoremove_wake_function
-> __wait_on_buffer -> __ext3_get_inode_loc
-> ext3_iget -> ext3_lookup
-> lookup_real -> __lookup_hash
-> lookup_slow -> path_lookupat
-> filename_lookup -> user_path_at_empty
-> user_path_at -> vfs_fstatat
-> ? lg_local_unlock -> vfs_stat
-> sys_stat64 -> ? __fput
-> ? restore_all -> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk
-> syscall_call
This is pretty readable, and if you only look at the left side column,
it still gives a shortened 'pattern' that gives an impression as to
what rough call context this is.
The first and last entry would always be printed on the left hand
side, to make the 'left column' unconditionally readable.
This mockup fits on 80col screens.
3) +'function parentheses'
arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() -> do_raw_spin_lock()
-> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() -> ? prepare_to_wait
-> prepare_to_wait() -> ? generic_make_request
-> ? unmap_underlying_metadata -> __wait_on_bit()
-> ? submit_bio+0xd2 -> out_of_line_wait_on_bit()
-> ? unmap_underlying_metadata -> ? autoremove_wake_function
-> __wait_on_buffer() -> __ext3_get_inode_loc()
-> ext3_iget() -> ext3_lookup()
-> lookup_real() -> __lookup_hash()
-> lookup_slow() -> path_lookupat()
-> filename_lookup() -> user_path_at_empty()
-> user_path_at() -> vfs_fstatat()
-> ? lg_local_unlock -> vfs_stat()
-> sys_stat64() -> ? __fput
-> ? restore_all -> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk
-> syscall_call()+0x7
This is more readable to me personally, as it's more C-alike. Note how
only 'real' FP entries without question marks get the parentheses.
This gives more visual separation between 'real' and 'noise' entries.
4) +'square brackets for unknown entries'
arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() -> do_raw_spin_lock()
-> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() -> ? [prepare_to_wait]
-> prepare_to_wait() -> ? [generic_make_request]
-> ? [unmap_underlying_metadata] -> __wait_on_bit()
-> ? [submit_bio+0xd2] -> out_of_line_wait_on_bit()
-> ? [unmap_underlying_metadata] -> ? [autoremove_wake_function]
-> __wait_on_buffer() -> __ext3_get_inode_loc()
-> ext3_iget() -> ext3_lookup()
-> lookup_real() -> __lookup_hash()
-> lookup_slow() -> path_lookupat()
-> filename_lookup() -> user_path_at_empty()
-> user_path_at() -> vfs_fstatat()
-> ? [lg_local_unlock] -> vfs_stat()
-> sys_stat64() -> ? [__fput]
-> ? [restore_all] -> ? [trace_hardirqs_on_thunk]
-> syscall_call()+0x7
To my eyes this further de-emphasises 'unknown' entries that are
uninteresting noise in most cases. Makes it a bit more easy for me to
ignore them.
YMMV: the brackets might increase emphasis for you ...
5) #3+'vertically aligned, screen split in three'
arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() -> do_raw_spin_lock() -> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
-> ? prepare_to_wait() -> prepare_to_wait() -> ? generic_make_request()
-> ? unmap_underlying_metadata() -> __wait_on_bit() -> ? submit_bio()+0xd2
-> out_of_line_wait_on_bit() -> ? unmap_underlying_metadata() -> ? autoremove_wake_function()
-> __wait_on_buffer() -> __ext3_get_inode_loc() -> ext3_iget()
-> ext3_lookup() -> lookup_real() -> __lookup_hash()
-> lookup_slow() -> path_lookupat() -> filename_lookup()
-> user_path_at_empty() -> user_path_at() -> vfs_fstatat()
-> ? lg_local_unlock() -> vfs_stat() -> sys_stat64()
-> ? __fput() -> ? restore_all() -> ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk()
-> syscall_call()+0x7
Still mostly readable, but more compressed, 11 lines only. Width is
110+ chars though, so does not fit on col80 screens easily. This might
be overdoing the horizontal compression, for little gain.
6) color tricks to de-emphasise unknown entries.
On color consoles I'd also print unknown entries in grey, to make it
easier to interpret screenshots and 'dmesg' output. (The color codes
might not make it into the syslog, but that's OK.)
I'd also print the symbolic resolution of the crash RIP in red.
Here's a mockup, I'm using ASCII color codes, so this might not render
in color on all mail readers:
RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81127cc2>] [<ffffffff81127cc2>].[31mgeneric_exec_single.[m+0x52/0x70
=====================
Conclusion:
So to me #4 looks best, and it's 16 lines instead of 31. Not as
compact as your mockup that has 13 lines, but pretty close.
(I'd also do the color tricks on #6, but that's more technically
challenging and I also don't look forward fighting the syslog guys
over it...)
I'd guess that some people would prefer #2 or #3, depending on how
ergonomic the parentheses and brackets are for them.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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