linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf: Allow to block process in syscall tracepoints

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: <20181208123437.16e42fe3@vmware.local.home>
Date:   Sat, 8 Dec 2018 12:34:37 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>, ldv@...linux.org,
        esyr@...hat.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf: Allow to block process in syscall tracepoints

On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 11:41:21 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > [root@...enth bpf]# trace -e augmented_raw_syscalls.c  --filter-pids 2279,1643
> > <SNIP>
> >  19766.027 ( 0.003 ms): gcc/27524 openat(dfd: CWD, filename: /lib64/libz.so.1, flags: CLOEXEC           ) = 5
> >  19766.035 ( 0.001 ms): gcc/27524 fstat(fd: 5, statbuf: 0x7ffe9323e2a0                                  ) = 0
> >  19766.037 ( 0.003 ms): gcc/27524 mmap(len: 2187272, prot: EXEC|READ, flags: PRIVATE|DENYWRITE, fd: 5   ) = 0x7fa2df435000
> >  19766.042 ( 0.003 ms): gcc/27524 mprotect(start: 0x7fa2df44b000, len: 2093056                          ) = 0
> >  19766.046 ( 0.004 ms): gcc/27524 mmap(addr: 0x7fa2df64a000, len: 4096, prot: READ|WRITE, flags: PRIVATE|FIXED|DENYWRITE, fd: 5, off: 86016) = 0x7fa2df64a000
> >  19766.051 ( 0.002 ms): gcc/27524 mmap(addr: 0x7fa2df64b000, len: 8, prot: READ|WRITE, flags: PRIVATE|FIXED|ANONYMOUS) = 0x7fa2df64b000
> >  19766.057 ( 0.001 ms): gcc/27524 close(fd: 5                                                           ) = 0
> >  19766.062 ( 0.003 ms): gcc/27524 openat(dfd: CWD, filename: /lib64/libc.so.6, flags: CLOEXEC           ) = 5
> > <SNIP>  
> 
> Right; and that is all nice. And exactly doesn't answer my question. Why
> do we care about those LOST entries so much that we have to do such
> horribly ugly things?
> 
> Esp. as you point out, they're clearly marked in the output and easily
> avoided by using a slightly larger buffer.

For small cases like this a slightly larger buffer wont help. And it
would suck if you are tracing something to find out why there's some
kind of anomaly that takes hours to run, only to find out that the
anomaly happened in the lost events.

Yes, there is a use case for a guarantee of no lost events!


-- Steve