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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:22:55 +0900 From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@....com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: Introduce CROSSRELEASE_STACK_TRACE and make it not unwind as default On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:11:12PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 07:57:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:09:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > BTW., have you attempted limiting the depth of the stack traces? I suspect more > > > > than 2-4 are rarely required to disambiguate the calling context. > > > > > > I did it for you. Let me show you the result. > > > > > > 1. No lockdep: 2.756558155 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.09% ) > > > 2. Lockdep: 2.968710420 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.12% ) > > > 3. Lockdep + Crossrelease 5 entries: 3.153839636 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.31% ) > > > 4. Lockdep + Crossrelease 3 entries: 3.137205534 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.87% ) > > > 5. Lockdep + Crossrelease + This patch: 2.963669551 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.11% ) > > > > I think the lockdep + crossrelease + full-stack numbers are missing? > > Ah, the last version of crossrelease merged into vanilla, records 5 > entries, since I thought it overloads too much if full stack is used, > and 5 entries are enough. Don't you think so? > > > But yeah, looks like single-entry-stacktrace crossrelease only has a +0.2% > > performance cost (with 0.1% noise), while lockdep itself has a +7.7% cost. > > > > That's very reasonable and we can keep the single-entry cross-release feature > > enabled by default as part of CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y - assuming all the crashes > > BTW, is there any crash by cross-release I don't know? Of course, I know > cases of false positives, but I don't about crash. Are you talking about the oops by 'null pointer dereference' by unwinder a few weeks ago? At the time, cross-release was falsely accused. AFAIK, cross-release has not crashed system yet.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists