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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <878skkeygm.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Sun, 01 Mar 2020 19:12:25 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
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

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
> 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:

DEFINE_EVENT
  DECLARE_TRACE
    __DECLARE_TRACE
       __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU
         static inline void trace_##name##_rcuidle(proto)
            __DO_TRACE
               if (rcuidle)
                  ....

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

Indeed. I took a wrong turn at some point in the macro jungle :)

So tracing itself is fine, but then if you have probes or bpf programs
attached to a tracepoint these use rcu_read_lock()/unlock() which is
obviosly wrong in rcuidle context.

Thanks,

        tglx