linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tee: optee: add invoke

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: <20210223184026.22c86356@xhacker.debian>
Date:   Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:40:26 +0800
From:   Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
To:     Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tee: optee: add invoke_fn tracepoints

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:59:22 +0100 Jens Wiklander wrote:


> 
> Hi Jisheng,

Hi Jens,

> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:44 AM Jisheng Zhang
> <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com> wrote:
> >
> > Add tracepoints to retrieve information about the invoke_fn. This would
> > help to measure how many invoke_fn are triggered and how long it takes
> > to complete one invoke_fn call.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Since v1:
> >  - add BUILD_BUG_ON() macro usage to make sure that the size of what is being
> >    copied, is not smaller than the amount being copied. Thank Steve.
> >  - move optee_trace.h to keep include headers sorted
> >
> >  drivers/tee/optee/call.c        |  4 ++
> >  drivers/tee/optee/optee_trace.h | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/tee/optee/optee_trace.h
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/call.c b/drivers/tee/optee/call.c
> > index 780d7c4fd756..0da6fe50f1af 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tee/optee/call.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/call.c
> > @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
> >  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> >  #include "optee_private.h"
> >  #include "optee_smc.h"
> > +#define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> > +#include "optee_trace.h"
> >
> >  struct optee_call_waiter {
> >         struct list_head list_node;
> > @@ -138,9 +140,11 @@ u32 optee_do_call_with_arg(struct tee_context *ctx, phys_addr_t parg)
> >         while (true) {
> >                 struct arm_smccc_res res;
> >
> > +               trace_optee_invoke_fn_begin(&param);
> >                 optee->invoke_fn(param.a0, param.a1, param.a2, param.a3,
> >                                  param.a4, param.a5, param.a6, param.a7,
> >                                  &res);
> > +               trace_optee_invoke_fn_end(&param, &res);
> >
> >                 if (res.a0 == OPTEE_SMC_RETURN_ETHREAD_LIMIT) {
> >                         /*
> > diff --git a/drivers/tee/optee/optee_trace.h b/drivers/tee/optee/optee_trace.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..7c954eefa4bf
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/tee/optee/optee_trace.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +/*
> > + * optee trace points
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2021 Synaptics Incorporated
> > + * Author: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#undef TRACE_SYSTEM
> > +#define TRACE_SYSTEM optee
> > +
> > +#if !defined(_TRACE_OPTEE_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ)
> > +#define _TRACE_OPTEE_H
> > +
> > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> > +#include <linux/tracepoint.h>
> > +#include "optee_private.h"
> > +  
> 
> Checkpatch has some complaints below. Is that something that could be
> fixed or is this so far from regular C-syntax that we don't care?

I tried ./scripts/checkpatch.pl in Linus tree to check the patch, there's
no any error, and except the "MAINTAINERS need updating" warning, there's
no other warnings.

git log  -- scripts/checkpatch.pl
shows the latest checkpatch.pl is at commit 62137364e3e8afcc745846c5c67cacf943149073

I'm not sure what happened.

Thanks

> 
> Thanks,
> Jens
> 
> > +TRACE_EVENT(optee_invoke_fn_begin,
> > +       TP_PROTO(struct optee_rpc_param *param),
> > +       TP_ARGS(param),
> > +
> > +       TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > +               __field(void *, param)
> > +               __array(u32, args, 8)
> > +       ),
> > +
> > +       TP_fast_assign(
> > +               __entry->param = param;
> > +               BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*param) < sizeof(__entry->args));
> > +               memcpy(__entry->args, param, sizeof(__entry->args));
> > +       ),
> > +
> > +       TP_printk("param=%p (%x, %x, %x, %x, %x, %x, %x, %x)", __entry->param,
> > +                 __entry->args[0], __entry->args[1], __entry->args[2],
> > +                 __entry->args[3], __entry->args[4], __entry->args[5],
> > +                 __entry->args[6], __entry->args[7])
> > +);
> > +
> > +TRACE_EVENT(optee_invoke_fn_end,
> > +       TP_PROTO(struct optee_rpc_param *param, struct arm_smccc_res *res),
> > +       TP_ARGS(param, res),
> > +
> > +       TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > +               __field(void *, param)
> > +               __array(unsigned long, rets, 4)
> > +       ),
> > +
> > +       TP_fast_assign(
> > +               __entry->param = param;
> > +               BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*res) < sizeof(__entry->rets));
> > +               memcpy(__entry->rets, res, sizeof(__entry->rets));
> > +       ),
> > +
> > +       TP_printk("param=%p ret (%lx, %lx, %lx, %lx)", __entry->param,
> > +                 __entry->rets[0], __entry->rets[1], __entry->rets[2],
> > +                 __entry->rets[3])
> > +);
> > +#endif /* _TRACE_OPTEE_H */
> > +
> > +#undef TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH
> > +#define TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH .
> > +#undef TRACE_INCLUDE_FILE
> > +#define TRACE_INCLUDE_FILE optee_trace
> > +
> > +/* This part must be outside protection */
> > +#include <trace/define_trace.h>
> > --
> > 2.30.0
> >