linux-kernel - Re: [patch 4/8] x86/entry: Move irq tracing on syscall entry to C-code

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: <CALCETrVNcpoubrpVrtGjXSQrod8jzjweszEPX_WSJM747xr8wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 1 Mar 2020 08:00:01 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/8] x86/entry: Move irq tracing on syscall entry to C-code

On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 7:21 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes:
> >> On Mar 1, 2020, at 2:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >> Ok, but for the time being anything before/after CONTEXT_KERNEL is unsafe
> >> except trace_hardirq_off/on() as those trace functions do not allow to
> >> attach anything AFAICT.
> >
> > Can you point to whatever makes those particular functions special?  I
> > failed to follow the macro maze.
>
> Those are not tracepoints and not going through the macro maze. See
> kernel/trace/trace_preemptirq.c

That has:

void trace_hardirqs_on(void)
{
        if (this_cpu_read(tracing_irq_cpu)) {
                if (!in_nmi())
                        trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
                tracer_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0, CALLER_ADDR1);
                this_cpu_write(tracing_irq_cpu, 0);
        }

        lockdep_hardirqs_on(CALLER_ADDR0);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_on);
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_on);

But this calls trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(), and that's the part of the
macro maze I got lost in.  I found:

#ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
DEFINE_EVENT(preemptirq_template, irq_disable,
             TP_PROTO(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip),
             TP_ARGS(ip, parent_ip));

DEFINE_EVENT(preemptirq_template, irq_enable,
             TP_PROTO(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip),
             TP_ARGS(ip, parent_ip));
#else
#define trace_irq_enable(...)
#define trace_irq_disable(...)
#define trace_irq_enable_rcuidle(...)
#define trace_irq_disable_rcuidle(...)
#endif

But the DEFINE_EVENT doesn't have the "_rcuidle" part.  And that's
where I got lost in the macro maze.  I looked at the gcc asm output,
and there is, indeed:

# ./include/trace/events/preemptirq.h:40:
DEFINE_EVENT(preemptirq_template, irq_enable,

with a bunch of asm magic that looks like it's probably a tracepoint.
I still don't quite see where the "_rcuidle" went.

But I also don't see why this is any different from any other tracepoint.

--Andy