linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 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]

Message-ID: <20160718024240.GM2279@X58A-UD3R>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:42:40 +0900
From:	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, walken@...gle.com,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:02:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:29:29AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:27:54PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > > > I suggested this patch on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/20/22. However,
> > > > > I want to proceed saperately since it's somewhat independent from each
> > > > > other. Frankly speaking, I want this patchset to be accepted at first so
> > > > > that the crossfeature can use this optimized save_stack_trace_norm()
> > > > > which makes crossrelease work smoothly.
> > > > 
> > > > What do you think about this way to improve it?
> > > 
> > > I like both of your improvements, the speed up is impressive:
> > > 
> > >   [    2.327597] save_stack_trace() takes 87114 ns
> > >   ...
> > >   [    2.781694] save_stack_trace() takes 20044 ns
> > >   ...
> > >   [    3.103264] save_stack_trace takes 3821 (sched_lock)
> > > 
> > > Could you please also measure call graph recording (perf record -g), how much 
> > > faster does it get with your patches and what are our remaining performance hot 
> > > spots?
> > > 
> > > Could you please merge your patches to the latest -tip tree, because this commit I 
> > > merged earlier today:
> > > 
> > >   81c2949f7fdc x86/dumpstack: Add show_stack_regs() and use it
> > > 
> > > conflicts with your patches. (I'll push this commit out later today.)
> > > 
> > > Also, could you please rename the _norm names to _fast or so, to signal that this 
> > > is a faster but less reliable method to get a stack dump? Nobody knows what 
> > > '_norm' means, but '_fast' is pretty self-explanatory.
> > 
> > Hm, but is print_context_stack_bp() variant really less reliable?  From
> > what I can tell, its only differences vs print_context_stack() are:
> > 
> > - It doesn't scan the stack for "guesses" (which are 'unreliable' and
> >   are ignored by the ops->address() callback anyway).
> > 
> > - It stops if ops->address() returns an error (which in this case means
> >   the array is full anyway).
> > 
> > - It stops if the address isn't a kernel text address.  I think this
> >   shouldn't normally be possible unless there's some generated code like
> >   bpf on the stack.  Maybe it could be slightly improved for this case.
> > 
> > So instead of adding a new save_stack_trace_fast() variant, why don't we
> > just modify the existing save_stack_trace() to use
> > print_context_stack_bp()?
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good idea. First of all if the kernel isn't built with
> frame pointers, all you have is wild walk guesses. Also even if frame pointers
> is built, the bp-non-validated "guesses" are important clues for debugging because
> they tell about previous calls that happened, or callbacks that were reffered to by
> the stack.

This was what I exactly intended to.

> 
> There are several different users of save_stack_trace() in the kernel, we can't
> be sure that all of them are interested in dropping those guesses.
> 
> So I'd rather advocate in favour of a new seperate helper.
> 
> Thanks.