linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] perf auxtrace: Add compat_auxtrace_mmap__{read_head|write

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:13:11 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To:     James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Riccardo Mancini <rickyman7@...il.com>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com>, coresight@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] perf auxtrace: Add
 compat_auxtrace_mmap__{read_head|write_tail}

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 05:00:14PM +0100, James Clark wrote:

[...]

> >> I couldn't see how it can ever return -1, it seems like it would loop forever
> >> until it reads the correct value.
> > 
> > I use this chunk comment to address the function
> > compat_auxtrace_mmap__write_tail():
> > 
> > +int __weak compat_auxtrace_mmap__write_tail(struct auxtrace_mmap *mm, u64 tail)
> > +{
> > +	struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc = mm->userpg;
> > +	u64 mask = (u64)(UINT32_MAX) << 32;
> > +
> > +	if (tail & mask)
> > +		return -1;
> > +
> > +	/* Ensure all reads are done before we write the tail out */
> > +	smp_mb();
> > +	WRITE_ONCE(pc->aux_tail, tail);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > 
> > Please let me know if this is okay or not?  Otherwise, if you think
> > the format can cause confusion, I'd like to split the comments into
> > two sections, one section for reading AUX head and another is for
> > writing AUX tail.
> 
> I see what you mean now, I think keeping it in one section is fine, I would just
> replace "When update the AUX tail and detects" with "When
> compat_auxtrace_mmap__write_tail() detects". If the function name is there then
> it's clear that it's not the return value of compat_auxtrace_mmap__read_head()

Sure, will update and send out the new patch.

Thanks for suggestion.
Leo