linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 06/34] function_graph: Allow multiple users to attach to function graph

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: <ZYGZWWqwtSP82Sja@krava>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 14:23:37 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@...cle.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/34] function_graph: Allow multiple users to attach
 to function graph

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 10:12:45PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:

SNIP

>  /* Both enabled by default (can be cleared by function_graph tracer flags */
>  static bool fgraph_sleep_time = true;
>  
> @@ -126,9 +247,34 @@ ftrace_push_return_trace(unsigned long ret, unsigned long func,
>  	calltime = trace_clock_local();
>  
>  	index = current->curr_ret_stack;
> -	RET_STACK_INC(current->curr_ret_stack);
> +	/* ret offset = 1 ; type = reserved */
> +	current->ret_stack[index + FGRAPH_RET_INDEX] = 1;
>  	ret_stack = RET_STACK(current, index);
> +	ret_stack->ret = ret;
> +	/*
> +	 * The unwinders expect curr_ret_stack to point to either zero
> +	 * or an index where to find the next ret_stack. Even though the
> +	 * ret stack might be bogus, we want to write the ret and the
> +	 * index to find the ret_stack before we increment the stack point.
> +	 * If an interrupt comes in now before we increment the curr_ret_stack
> +	 * it may blow away what we wrote. But that's fine, because the
> +	 * index will still be correct (even though the 'ret' won't be).
> +	 * What we worry about is the index being correct after we increment
> +	 * the curr_ret_stack and before we update that index, as if an
> +	 * interrupt comes in and does an unwind stack dump, it will need
> +	 * at least a correct index!
> +	 */
>  	barrier();
> +	current->curr_ret_stack += FGRAPH_RET_INDEX + 1;
> +	/*
> +	 * This next barrier is to ensure that an interrupt coming in
> +	 * will not corrupt what we are about to write.
> +	 */
> +	barrier();
> +
> +	/* Still keep it reserved even if an interrupt came in */
> +	current->ret_stack[index + FGRAPH_RET_INDEX] = 1;

seems like this was set already few lines above?

jirka

> +
>  	ret_stack->ret = ret;
>  	ret_stack->func = func;
>  	ret_stack->calltime = calltime;
> @@ -159,6 +305,12 @@ int function_graph_enter(unsigned long ret, unsigned long func,
>  			 unsigned long frame_pointer, unsigned long *retp)
>  {
>  	struct ftrace_graph_ent trace;
> +	int offset;
> +	int start;
> +	int type;
> +	int val;
> +	int cnt = 0;
> +	int i;
>  
>  #ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
>  	/*

SNIP