linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 16/27] tracing: Remove regular RCU context for

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: <20200306154556.6a829484@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:45:56 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        dan carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 16/27] tracing: Remove regular RCU context for
 _rcuidle tracepoints (again)

On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 15:22:46 -0500 (EST)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:

> I agree with the overall approach. Just a bit of nitpicking on the API:
> 
> I understand that the "prio" argument is a separate argument because it can take
> many values. However, "rcu" is just a boolean, so I wonder if we should not rather
> introduce a "int flags" with a bitmask enum, e.g.

I thought about this approach, but thought it was a bit overkill. As the
kernel doesn't have an internal API, I figured we can switch this over to
flags when we get another flag to add. Unless you can think of one in the
near future.

> 
> int tracepoint_probe_register_prio_flags(struct tracepoint *tp, void *probe,
>                                          void *data, int prio, int flags)
> 
> where flags would be populated through OR between labels of this enum:
> 
> enum tracepoint_flags {
>   TRACEPOINT_FLAG_RCU = (1U << 0),
> };
> 
> We can then be future-proof for additional flags without ending up calling e.g.
> 
> tracepoint_probe_register_featurea_featureb_featurec(tp, probe, data, 0, 1, 0, 1)

No, as soon as there is another boolean to add, the rcu version would be
switched to flags. I even thought about making the rcu and prio into one,
and change prio to be a SHRT_MAX max, and have the other 16 bits be for
flags.

-- Steve


> 
> which seems rather error-prone and less readable than a set of flags.