netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kcov: remote coverage support

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]

Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:52:38 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kcov: remote coverage support

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 9:27 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:24 PM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds background thread coverage collection ability to kcov.
> ...
> > +static struct kcov_remote *kcov_remote_add(struct kcov *kcov, u64 handle)
> > +{
> > +       struct kcov_remote *remote;
> > +
> > +       if (kcov_remote_find(handle))
> > +               return ERR_PTR(-EEXIST);
> > +       remote = kmalloc(sizeof(*remote), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > +       if (!remote)
> > +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +       remote->handle = handle;
> > +       remote->kcov = kcov;
> > +       hash_add(kcov_remote_map, &remote->hnode, handle);
>
> I think it will make sense to check that there is no existing kcov
> with the same handle registered. Such condition will be extremely hard
> to debug based on episodically missing coverage.

Although looking at this again: we already check that by calling
kcov_remote_find().

>
> ...
> >  void kcov_task_exit(struct task_struct *t)
> >  {
> >         struct kcov *kcov;
> > @@ -256,15 +401,23 @@ void kcov_task_exit(struct task_struct *t)
> >         kcov = t->kcov;
> >         if (kcov == NULL)
> >                 return;
> > +
> >         spin_lock(&kcov->lock);
> > +       kcov_debug("t = %px, kcov->t = %px\n", t, kcov->t);
> > +       /*
> > +        * If !kcov->remote, this checks that t->kcov->t == t.
> > +        * If kcov->remote == true then the exiting task is either:
> > +        * 1. a remote task between kcov_remote_start() and kcov_remote_stop(),
> > +        *    in this case t != kcov->t and we'll print a warning; or
>
> Why? Is kcov->t == NULL for remote kcov's? May be worth mentioning in
> the comment b/c it's a very condensed form to check lots of different
> things at once.
>
> Otherwise the series look good to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
>
> But Andrew's comments stand. It's possible I understand all of this
> only because I already know how it works and why it works this way.