linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Faultable tracepoints (v2)

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: <083bce0f-bd66-ab83-1211-be9838499b45@efficios.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:22:03 -0500
From:   Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Faultable tracepoints (v2)

[ Adding Mathieu Desnoyers in CC ]

On 2021-02-23 21 h 16, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:21:19 -0500
> Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com> wrote:
> 
>> This series only implements the tracepoint infrastructure required to
>> allow tracers to handle page faults. Modifying each tracer to handle
>> those page faults would be a next step after we all agree on this piece
>> of instrumentation infrastructure.
> 
> I started taking a quick look at this, and came up with the question: how
> do you allow preemption when dealing with per-cpu buffers or storage to
> record the data?
> 
> That is, perf, bpf and ftrace are all using some kind of per-cpu data, and
> this is the reason for the need to disable preemption. What's the solution
> that LTTng is using for this? I know it has a per cpu buffers too, but does
> it have some kind of "per task" buffer that is being used to extract the
> data that can fault?
> 
> -- Steve
>