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

Message-ID: <1880ff7f.1d98.1993ba8cca1.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:02:22 +0800 (CST)
From: "David Wang" <00107082@....com>
To: "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Usama Arif" <usamaarif642@...il.com>,
	"Yueyang Pan" <pyyjason@...il.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


At 2025-09-12 08:25:12, "Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>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?

This looks good to me, at least for my tools. :)
On my system, there are 4K+ lines of items, each byte added would increase 4K+bytes for one read,
but good thing is normally "accurate:no" would not show up. 

David

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