linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] alloc_tag: mark inaccurate allocation counters in /proc/allocinfo output

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: <CAJuCfpEoWtgv8k4vApkGsNNUYFBnvS-N2DPQu2JrreCUPbT5dA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 17:25:12 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>, Yueyang Pan <pyyjason@...il.com>, 
	David Wang <00107082@....com>, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, vbabka@...e.cz, 
	hannes@...xchg.org, rientjes@...gle.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, 
	harry.yoo@...cle.com, shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, pasha.tatashin@...een.com, 
	souravpanda@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] alloc_tag: mark inaccurate allocation counters in
 /proc/allocinfo output

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 2:31 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 12:00:23 -0400 Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think simply adding * to the end of function name or filename is sufficient
> > > as they are already str.
> > >
> >
> > Instead of:
> >
> > 49152*      48* arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c:2709 func:mce_device_create
> >
> > Could we do something like:
> >
> > 49152      48 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c:2709 func:mce_device_create(inaccurate)
>
> Can we add another row, saying "the previous row was inaccurate"?  I
> guess that would break parsers also.
>
>
>
> I don't know if this was by design, but the present format does provide
> extensibility.  It is basically
>
>         NNNN NNN name:value name:value
>
> one could arguably append a third name:value and hope that authors of
> existing parsers figured this out.

Actually that sounds like the best idea so far. Currently the format is:

<bytes> <count> <file>:<line> [<module>] func:<function>

We can adopt a rule that after this, the line can contain additional
key:value pairs. In that case for inaccurate lines we can add:

49152      48 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c:2709
func:mce_device_create accurate:no

In the future we can append more key:value pairs if we need them.
Parsers which don't know how to parse a new key can simply ignore
them.

Does that sound good to everyone?

>
>
> Whatev.  I'll drop this version from mm.git.