linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks executing with preempt on

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 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:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:40:05 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        fweisbec <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        baohong liu <baohong.liu@...el.com>,
        vedang patel <vedang.patel@...el.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tracepoint: Introduce tracepoint callbacks
 executing with preempt on

On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 08:38:26 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:47:47AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:26:29 -0400 (EDT)
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > The general approach and the implementation look fine, except for
> > > one small detail: I would be tempted to explicitly disable preemption
> > > around the call to the tracepoint callback for the rcuidle variant,
> > > unless we plan to audit every tracer right away to remove any assumption
> > > that preemption is disabled in the callback implementation.  
> > 
> > I'm thinking that we do that audit. There shouldn't be many instances
> > of it. I like the idea that a tracepoint callback gets called with
> > preemption enabled.  
> 
> Are you really sure you want to increase your state space that much?

Why not? The code I have in callbacks already deals with all sorts of
context - normal, softirq, irq, NMI, preemption disabled, irq
disabled.

-- Steve