linux-kernel - RE: [RFC 12/12] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack

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]

Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:50:37 +0900
From:	"byungchul.park" <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	"'xinhui'" <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
	<mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <npiggin@...e.de>,
	<walken@...gle.com>, <ak@...e.de>,
	<tglx@...elltoy.tec.linutronix.de>
Subject: RE: [RFC 12/12] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xinhui [mailto:xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 4:29 PM
> To: Byungchul Park; peterz@...radead.org; mingo@...nel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; npiggin@...e.de; walken@...gle.com;
> ak@...e.de; tglx@...elltoy.tec.linutronix.de
> Subject: Re: [RFC 12/12] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace
> 
> 
> On 2016年06月20日 12:55, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Currently, x86 implementation of save_stack_trace() is walking all stack
> > region word by word regardless of what the trace->max_entries is.
> > However, it's unnecessary to walk after already fulfilling caller's
> > requirement, say, if trace->nr_entries >= trace->max_entries is true.
> >
> > For example, CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE implementation calls
> > save_stack_trace() with max_entries = 5 frequently. I measured its
> > overhead and printed its difference of sched_clock() with my QEMU x86
> > machine.
> >
> > The latency was improved over 70% when trace->max_entries = 5.
> >
> [snip]
> 
> > +static int save_stack_end(void *data)
> > +{
> > +	struct stack_trace *trace = data;
> > +	return trace->nr_entries >= trace->max_entries;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static const struct stacktrace_ops save_stack_ops = {
> >   	.stack		= save_stack_stack,
> >   	.address	= save_stack_address,
> then why not check the return value of ->address(), -1 indicate there is
> no room to store any pointer.

Hello,

Indeed. It also looks good to me even though it has to propagate the condition
between callback functions. I will modify it if it's better.

Thank you.
Byungchul

> 
> >   	.walk_stack	= print_context_stack,
> > +	.end_walk	= save_stack_end,
> >   };
> >
> >   static const struct stacktrace_ops save_stack_ops_nosched = {
> >