linux-kernel - Re: Alternatives to /sys/kernel/debug/wakeup

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: <CAJWu+oo7kwmEyMXQN0yfswV2=J-Fa9QybhAUx-SOGG_ipsBErQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:52:23 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Tri Vo <trong@...roid.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to /sys/kernel/debug/wakeup_sources

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:15 PM Tri Vo <trong@...roid.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Android userspace reading wakeup_sources is not ideal because:
> > > > > - Debugfs API is not stable, i.e. Android tools built on top of it are
> > > > > not guaranteed to be backward/forward compatible.
> > > > > - This file requires debugfs to be mounted, which itself is
> > > > > undesirable for security reasons.
> > > > >
> > > > > To address these problems, we want to contribute a way to expose these
> > > > > statistics that doesn't depend on debugfs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some initial thoughts/questions: Should we expose the stats in sysfs?
> > > > > Or maybe implement eBPF-based solution? What do you think?
> > >
> > > We are going through Android's out-of-tree kernel dependencies along with
> > > userspace APIs that are not necessarily considered "stable and forever
> > > supported" upstream. The debugfs dependencies showed up on our radar as a
> > > result and so we are wondering if we should worry about changes in debugfs
> > > interface and hence the question(s) below.
> > >
> > > So, can we rely on /d/wakeup_sources to be considered a userspace API and
> > > hence maintained stable as we do for other /proc and /sys entries?
> > >
> > > If yes, then we will go ahead and add tests for this in LTP or
> > > somewhere else suitable.
> >
> > No, debugfs is not ABI.
> >
> > > If no, then we would love to hear suggestions for any changes that need to be
> > > made or we simply just move the debugfs entry into somewhere like
> > > /sys/power/ ?
> >
> > No, moving that entire file from debugfs into sysfs is not an option either.
> >
> > The statistics for the wakeup sources associated with devices are already there
> > under /sys/devices/.../power/ , but I guess you want all wakeup sources?
> >
> > That would require adding a kobject to struct wakeup_source and exposing
> > all of the statistics as separate attributes under it.  In which case it would be
> > good to replace the existing wakeup statistics under /sys/devices/.../power/
> > with symbolic links to the attributes under the wakeup_source kobject.
>
> Thanks for your input, Rafael! Your suggestion makes sense. I'll work
> on a patch for this.

Does that entail making each wake up source, a new sysfs node under a
particular device, and then adding stats under that new node?

thanks,

- Joel