linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Revert SRCU from tracepoint infrastructure

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: <1076842217.616862.1581361518556.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Feb 2020 14:05:18 -0500 (EST)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Revert SRCU from tracepoint infrastructure

----- On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:30 PM, rostedt rostedt@...dmis.org wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:33:04 -0500 (EST)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> 
>> The rcu_irq_enter/exit_irqson() does atomic_add_return(), which is even worse
>> than a memory barrier.
> 
> As we discussed on IRC, would something like this work (not even
> compiled tested).

Yes, it's very close to what I have prototyped locally. With one very minor
detail below:

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/tracepoint.h b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> index 1fb11daa5c53..a83fd076a312 100644
> --- a/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tracepoint.h
> @@ -179,10 +179,8 @@ static inline struct tracepoint
> *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
> 		 * For rcuidle callers, use srcu since sched-rcu	\
> 		 * doesn't work from the idle path.			\
> 		 */							\
> -		if (rcuidle) {						\
> +		if (rcuidle)						\
> 			__idx = srcu_read_lock_notrace(&tracepoint_srcu);\
> -			rcu_irq_enter_irqson();				\
> -		}							\
> 									\
> 		it_func_ptr = rcu_dereference_raw((tp)->funcs);		\
> 									\
> @@ -194,10 +192,8 @@ static inline struct tracepoint
> *tracepoint_ptr_deref(tracepoint_ptr_t *p)
> 			} while ((++it_func_ptr)->func);		\
> 		}							\
> 									\
> -		if (rcuidle) {						\
> -			rcu_irq_exit_irqson();				\
> +		if (rcuidle)						\
> 			srcu_read_unlock_notrace(&tracepoint_srcu, __idx);\
> -		}							\
> 									\
> 		preempt_enable_notrace();				\
> 	} while (0)
> diff --git a/include/trace/perf.h b/include/trace/perf.h
> index dbc6c74defc3..86d3b2eb00cd 100644
> --- a/include/trace/perf.h
> +++ b/include/trace/perf.h
> @@ -39,17 +39,27 @@ perf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto)					\
> 	u64 __count = 1;						\
> 	struct task_struct *__task = NULL;				\
> 	struct hlist_head *head;					\
> +	bool rcu_watching;						\
> 	int __entry_size;						\
> 	int __data_size;						\
> 	int rctx;							\
> 									\
> +	rcu_watching = rcu_is_watching();				\
> +									\
> +	/* Can not use RCU if rcu is not watching and in NMI */		\
> +	if (!rcu_watching && in_nmi())					\
> +		return;							\
> +									\
> 	__data_size = trace_event_get_offsets_##call(&__data_offsets, args); \
> 									\
> +	if (!rcu_watching)						\
> +		rcu_irq_enter_irqson();					\

You might want to fold the line above into the first check like this,
considering that doing the rcu_irq_enter_irqson() earlier should not
matter, and I expect it to remove a branch from the probe:

rcu_watching = rcu_is_watching();

if (!rcu_watching) {
        if (in_nmi())
                return;
        rcu_irq_enter_irqson();
}

Thanks!

Mathieu

> +									\
> 	head = this_cpu_ptr(event_call->perf_events);			\
> 	if (!bpf_prog_array_valid(event_call) &&			\
> 	    __builtin_constant_p(!__task) && !__task &&			\
> 	    hlist_empty(head))						\
> -		return;							\
> +		goto out;						\
> 									\
> 	__entry_size = ALIGN(__data_size + sizeof(*entry) + sizeof(u32),\
> 			     sizeof(u64));				\
> @@ -57,7 +67,7 @@ perf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto)					\
> 									\
> 	entry = perf_trace_buf_alloc(__entry_size, &__regs, &rctx);	\
> 	if (!entry)							\
> -		return;							\
> +		goto out;						\
> 									\
> 	perf_fetch_caller_regs(__regs);					\
> 									\
> @@ -68,6 +78,9 @@ perf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto)					\
> 	perf_trace_run_bpf_submit(entry, __entry_size, rctx,		\
> 				  event_call, __count, __regs,		\
> 				  head, __task);			\
> +out:									\
> +	if (!rcu_watching)						\
> +		rcu_irq_exit_irqson();					\
> }
> 
>  /*

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com