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: <aMP7g7ts8n2Gubql@devbig569.cln6.facebook.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 03:52:51 -0700
From: Yueyang Pan <pyyjason@...il.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...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 05:25:12PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan 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?

Yeah I agree on this proposal. We can keep this convention.

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