linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 06/15] lockdep: Make save_trace can skip stack tracing of the current

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170113001835.GA3326@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:18:36 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/15] lockdep: Make save_trace can skip stack tracing
 of the current

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:37:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:02PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Currently, save_trace() always performs save_stack_trace() for the
> > current. However, crossrelease needs to use stack trace data of another
> > context instead of the current. So add a parameter for skipping stack
> > tracing of the current and make it use trace data, which is already
> > saved by crossrelease framework.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index 3eaa11c..11580ec 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -387,15 +387,22 @@ static void print_lockdep_off(const char *bug_msg)
> >  #endif
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int save_trace(struct stack_trace *trace)
> > +static int save_trace(struct stack_trace *trace, int skip_tracing)
> >  {
> > -	trace->nr_entries = 0;
> > -	trace->max_entries = MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > -	trace->entries = stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > +	unsigned int nr_avail = MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES - nr_stack_trace_entries;
> >  
> > -	trace->skip = 3;
> > -
> > -	save_stack_trace(trace);
> > +	if (skip_tracing) {
> > +		trace->nr_entries = min(trace->nr_entries, nr_avail);
> > +		memcpy(stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries, trace->entries,
> > +				trace->nr_entries * sizeof(trace->entries[0]));
> > +		trace->entries = stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > +	} else {
> > +		trace->nr_entries = 0;
> > +		trace->max_entries = nr_avail;
> > +		trace->entries = stack_trace + nr_stack_trace_entries;
> > +		trace->skip = 3;
> > +		save_stack_trace(trace);
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Some daft arches put -1 at the end to indicate its a full trace.
> 
> That's pretty nasty semantics.. so when skip_tracing it modifies trace
> in-place.

I agree. Let me think more and enhance it.

Thank you,
Byungchul