| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9f44aae6-ec00-7ede-ec19-6e67ceb74510@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:01:13 +0800
From: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <bhe@...hat.com>, <pmladek@...e.com>,
<kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
<coresight@...ts.linaro.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
<linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
<sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <kernel-dev@...lia.com>, <kernel@...ccoli.net>,
<halves@...onical.com>, <fabiomirmar@...il.com>,
<alejandro.j.jimenez@...cle.com>,
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, <arnd@...db.de>,
<bp@...en8.de>, <corbet@....net>, <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <dyoung@...hat.com>,
<feng.tang@...el.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<mikelley@...rosoft.com>, <hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>,
<jgross@...e.com>, <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
<keescook@...omium.org>, <luto@...nel.org>, <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <paulmck@...nel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
<stern@...land.harvard.edu>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<vgoyal@...hat.com>, <vkuznets@...hat.com>, <will@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/30] notifier: Show function names on notifier routines
if DEBUG_NOTIFIERS is set
On 2022/4/28 6:49, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> Currently we have a debug infrastructure in the notifiers file, but
> it's very simple/limited. This patch extends it by:
>
> (a) Showing all registered/unregistered notifiers' callback names;
>
> (b) Adding a dynamic debug tuning to allow showing called notifiers'
> function names. Notice that this should be guarded as a tunable since
> it can flood the kernel log buffer.
>
> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> Cc: Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
> ---
>
> We have some design decisions that worth discussing here:
>
> (a) First of call, using C99 helps a lot to write clear and concise code, but
> due to commit 4d94f910e79a ("Kbuild: use -Wdeclaration-after-statement") we
> have a warning if mixing variable declarations with code. For this patch though,
> doing that makes the code way clear, so decision was to add the debug code
> inside brackets whenever this warning pops up. We can change that, but that'll
> cause more ifdefs in the same function.
>
> (b) In the symbol lookup helper function, we modify the parameter passed but
> even more, we return it as well! This is unusual and seems unnecessary, but was
> the strategy taken to allow embedding such function in the pr_debug() call.
>
> Not doing that would likely requiring 3 symbol_name variables to avoid
> concurrency (registering notifier A while calling notifier B) - we rely in
> local variables as a serialization mechanism.
>
> We're open for suggestions in case this design is not appropriate;
> thanks in advance!
>
> kernel/notifier.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/notifier.c b/kernel/notifier.c
> index ba005ebf4730..21032ebcde57 100644
> --- a/kernel/notifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/notifier.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,22 @@
> #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
> #include <linux/reboot.h>
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS
> +#include <linux/kallsyms.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * Helper to get symbol names in case DEBUG_NOTIFIERS is set.
> + * Return the modified parameter is a strategy used to achieve
> + * the pr_debug() functionality - with this, function is only
> + * executed if the dynamic debug tuning is effectively set.
> + */
> +static inline char *notifier_name(struct notifier_block *nb, char *sym_name)
> +{
> + lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)(nb->notifier_call), sym_name);
> + return sym_name;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * Notifier list for kernel code which wants to be called
> * at shutdown. This is used to stop any idling DMA operations
> @@ -34,20 +50,41 @@ static int notifier_chain_register(struct notifier_block **nl,
> }
> n->next = *nl;
> rcu_assign_pointer(*nl, n);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS
> + {
> + char sym_name[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
> +
> + pr_info("notifiers: registered %s()\n",
> + notifier_name(n, sym_name));
> + }
Duplicate Code.
Is it better to use __func__ and %pS?
pr_info("%s: %pS\n", __func__, n->notifier_call);
> +#endif
> return 0;
> }
>
> static int notifier_chain_unregister(struct notifier_block **nl,
> struct notifier_block *n)
> {
> + int ret = -ENOENT;
> +
> while ((*nl) != NULL) {
> if ((*nl) == n) {
> rcu_assign_pointer(*nl, n->next);
> - return 0;
> + ret = 0;
> + break;
> }
> nl = &((*nl)->next);
> }
> - return -ENOENT;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS
> + if (!ret) {
> + char sym_name[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
> +
> + pr_info("notifiers: unregistered %s()\n",
> + notifier_name(n, sym_name));
> + }
Duplicate Code.
Is it better to use __func__ and %pS?
pr_info("%s: %pS\n", __func__, n->notifier_call);
> +#endif
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -80,6 +117,13 @@ static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
> nb = next_nb;
> continue;
> }
> +
Is the "#ifdef" missing here?
> + {
> + char sym_name[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
> +
> + pr_debug("notifiers: calling %s()\n",
> + notifier_name(nb, sym_name));
Duplicate Code.
Is it better to use __func__ and %pS?
pr_info("%s: %pS\n", __func__, n->notifier_call);
> + }
> #endif
> ret = nb->notifier_call(nb, val, v);
>
>
Thanks
Xiaoming Ni
Powered by blists - more mailing lists