linux-kernel - Re: [PACTH v9] stacktrace: Eliminate task stack trace duplication

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: <20160817165811.qzqh65v53x37v3ap@treble>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 11:58:11 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Robert Foss <robert.foss@...labora.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, yinghan@...gle.com, ast@...com,
	linux@...musvillemoes.dk, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
	Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>,
	Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PACTH v9] stacktrace: Eliminate task stack trace duplication

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:51:45AM -0400, Robert Foss wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2016-08-17 02:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 07:12:36PM -0400, robert.foss@...labora.com wrote:
> > > From: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
> > > 
> > > The problem with small dmesg ring buffer like 512k is that only limited number
> > > of task traces will be logged. Sometimes we lose important information only
> > > because of too many duplicated stack traces. This problem occurs when dumping
> > > lots of stacks in a single operation, such as sysrq-T.
> > > 
> > > This patch tries to reduce the duplication of task stack trace in the dump
> > > message by hashing the task stack. The hashtable is a 32k pre-allocated buffer
> > > during bootup. Each time if we find the identical task trace in the task stack,
> > > we dump only the pid of the task which has the task trace dumped. So it is easy
> > > to back track to the full stack with the pid.
> > > 
> > > When we do the hashing, we eliminate garbage entries from stack traces. Those
> > > entries are still being printed in the dump to provide more debugging
> > > informations.
> > > 
> > > [   53.510162] kworker/0:0     S ffffffff8161d820     0     4      2 0x00000000
> > > [   53.517237]  ffff88027547de60 0000000000000046 ffffffff812ab840 0000000000000000
> > > [   53.524663]  ffff880275460080 ffff88027547dfd8 ffff88027547dfd8 ffff88027547dfd8
> > > [   53.532092]  ffffffff81813020 ffff880275460080 0000000000000000 ffff8808758670c0
> > > [   53.539521] Call Trace:
> > > [   53.541974]  [<ffffffff812ab840>] ? cfq_init_queue+0x350/0x350
> > > [   53.547791]  [<ffffffff81524d49>] schedule+0x29/0x70
> > > [   53.552761]  [<ffffffff810945a3>] worker_thread+0x233/0x380
> > > [   53.558318]  [<ffffffff81094370>] ? manage_workers.isra.28+0x230/0x230
> > > [   53.564839]  [<ffffffff81099a73>] kthread+0x93/0xa0
> > > [   53.569714]  [<ffffffff8152e6d4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > > [   53.575628]  [<ffffffff810999e0>] ? kthread_worker_fn+0x140/0x140
> > > [   53.581714]  [<ffffffff8152e6d0>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
> > > [   53.586762] kworker/u:0     S ffffffff8161d820     0     5      2 0x00000000
> > > [   53.593858]  ffff88027547fe60 0000000000000046 ffffffffa005cc70 0000000000000000
> > > [   53.601307]  ffff8802754627d0 ffff88027547ffd8 ffff88027547ffd8 ffff88027547ffd8
> > > [   53.608788]  ffffffff81813020 ffff8802754627d0 0000000000011fc0 ffff8804758670c0
> > > [   53.616232] Call Trace:
> > > [   53.618676] <Same stack as pid 4>
> > > 
> > 
> > You might want to wait a bit and have a look at this:
> > 
> >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cover.1471011425.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com
> > 
> 
> I'll have a look through that series!
> Thanks!

Yeah, those patches replace dump_trace() with a new unwinder interface,
so if they get merged, this will need to be rewritten a little bit.

As for the patch itself, I'm not crazy about how it pushes the decision
of whether to print the stack of a given task down to the stack dump
code in show_trace_log_lvl().

I think I'd prefer to instead change the implementation of sysrq-T so
that it uses save_stack_trace_tsk(), and then uses
printk_stack_address() to print the stack.  Then the stack dump code in
dumpstack*.c would be completely unaffected.

Or, even better, instead of sysrq-T, can the user just read
/proc/*/{comm,stack} and /proc/sched_debug?  That gives basically the
same information without flooding printk.

-- 
Josh