linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints

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 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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 09:47:06 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>, 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>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] tracing: Introduce faultable tracepoints

On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:56:30PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 11:23:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 02:18:29PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:47:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:54:14PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > > When invoked from system call enter/exit instrumentation, accessing
> > > > > user-space data is a common use-case for tracers. However, tracepoints
> > > > > currently disable preemption around iteration on the registered
> > > > > tracepoint probes and invocation of the probe callbacks, which prevents
> > > > > tracers from handling page faults.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Extend the tracepoint and trace event APIs to allow defining a faultable
> > > > > tracepoint which invokes its callback with preemption enabled.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also extend the tracepoint API to allow tracers to request specific
> > > > > probes to be connected to those faultable tracepoints. When the
> > > > > TRACEPOINT_MAY_FAULT flag is provided on registration, the probe
> > > > > callback will be called with preemption enabled, and is allowed to take
> > > > > page faults. Faultable probes can only be registered on faultable
> > > > > tracepoints and non-faultable probes on non-faultable tracepoints.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The tasks trace rcu mechanism is used to synchronize read-side
> > > > > marshalling of the registered probes with respect to faultable probes
> > > > > unregistration and teardown.
> > > > 
> > > > What is trace-trace rcu and why is it needed here? What's wrong with
> > > > SRCU ?
> > > 
> > > Tasks Trace RCU avoids SRCU's full barriers and the array accesses in the
> > > read-side primitives.  This can be important when tracing low-overhead
> > > components of fast paths.
> > 
> > So why wasn't SRCU improved? That is, the above doesn't much explain.
> > 
> > What is the trade-off made to justify adding yet another RCU flavour?
> 
> We didn't think you would be all that happy about having each and
> every context switch iterating through many tens or even hundreds of
> srcu_struct structures.  For that matter, we didn't think that anyone
> else would be all that happy either.  Us included.

So again, what is task-trace RCU ? How does it differ from say
preemptible rcu, which AFAICT could be used here too, no?