linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Guard __DECLARE_TRACE() use of __DO_TRACE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7052507f-a435-4fbb-bdf4-4949224e29dc@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 14:29:00 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: Guard __DECLARE_TRACE() use of
 __DO_TRACE_CALL() with SRCU-fast

On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 07:38:49PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 12:46:32 -0800
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > >             bash-1165    [001] DBZ.f   269.955762: sys_rt_sigaction -> 0x0
> > >                                ^^^^^
> > >                             This is just garbage.  
> > 
> > Yes, but is is the original garbage, and garbage obtained by acceding
> > to your request.  ;-)
> 
> Yes, here's what it looks like before patch:
> 
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.498737: sys_wait4 -> 0xfffffffffffffff6
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.498740: sys_rt_sigreturn()
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.498765: sys_rt_sigaction(sig: 2, act: 0x7ffef2f08c50, oact: 0x7ffef2f08cf0, sigsetsize: 8)
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.498770: sys_rt_sigaction -> 0x0
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.498794: sys_rt_sigprocmask(how: 0, nset: 0, oset: 0x7ffef2f08c70, sigsetsize: 8)
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.498795: sys_rt_sigprocmask -> 0x0
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.499055: sys_write(fd: 1, buf: 0x562f0f3aba90 (1b:5d:38:30:30:33:3b:65:6e:64:3d:36:62:62:34:38:38:39:38:2d:32:33:31:33:2d:34:64:38:30:2d:39:30:62:39
> :2d:66:33:63:31:36:36:37:62:63:37:37:34:3b:65:78:69:74:3d:73:75:63:63:65:73:73:1b:5c) ".]8003;end=6bb48898-2313-4d80-90b9-f3c1667bc774;exit=success.\", count: 0x3e)
>             bash-1168    [001] .l...    77.499099: sys_write -> 0x3e
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.499196: sys_rt_sigprocmask(how: 0, nset: 0, oset: 0x7ffef2f080c0, sigsetsize: 8)
>             bash-1168    [001] .....    77.499198: sys_rt_sigprocmask -> 0x0
> 
> [ that lone "l" (el not one) is LAZY_NEED_RESCHED ]
> 
> After adding the patch:
> 
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179808: sys_rt_sigprocmask -> 0x0
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179811: sys_ioctl(fd: 0xff, cmd: 0x5401, arg: 0x7ffcaef0e1b0)
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179815: sys_ioctl -> 0x0
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179818: sys_ioctl(fd: 0xff, cmd: 0x5413, arg: 0x7ffcaef0e1c0)
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179823: sys_ioctl -> 0x0
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179862: sys_rt_sigprocmask(how: 2, nset: 0x7ffcaef0e290, oset: 0, sigsetsize: 8)
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179866: sys_rt_sigprocmask -> 0x0
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179884: sys_wait4(upid: 0xffffffffffffffff, stat_addr: 0x7ffcaef0db50, options: 0xb, ru: 0)
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179891: sys_wait4 -> 0xfffffffffffffff6
>             bash-1212    [005] DBZ.f    72.179894: sys_rt_sigreturn()

Understood.

> > Perhaps a little bit more constructively, have your conflicting changes
> > hit mainline yet?
> 
> All my changes have hit mainline.
> 
> I believe I did have a solution for fixing the above issue but I was
> planning to implement it after the merge window. I can probably do that
> today during the keynotes ;-)

Would it be easiest for me to just hand the patch back to you?  I am of
course happy to push it myself, but I am also happy to avoid being in
the way.

							Thanx, Paul