From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
"Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Instrumentation and RCU
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:40:03 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1666704263.23816.1583862003925.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87imjc5f6a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
----- On Mar 10, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> writes:
[...]
> See the entry series I'm working on. Aside of moving all this nonsense
> into C-code it splits lockdep and tracing so it looks like this:
>
> lockdep_hardirqs_off();
> user_exit_irqsoff();
> __trace_hardirqs_off();
>
> The latter uses regular RCU and not the scru/rcu_irq dance.
>
Awesome :)
>
>>>> If a tracer recurses, or if a tracer attempts to trace another tracer, the
>>>> instrumentation would break the recursion chain by preventing instrumentation
>>>> from firing. If we end up caring about tracers tracing other tracers, we could
>>>> have one distinct flag per tracer and let each tracer break the recursion chain.
>>>>
>>>> Having this flag per kernel stack rather than per CPU or per thread would
>>>> allow tracing of nested interrupt handlers (and NMIs), but would break
>>>> call chains both within the same stack or going through a trap. I think
>>>> it could be a nice complementary safety net to handle mishaps in a non-fatal
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> That works as long as none of this uses breakpoint based patching to
>>> dynamically disable/enable stuff.
>>
>> I'm clearly missing something here. I was expecting the "in_tracing" flag trick
>> to be able to fix the breakpoint recursion issue. What is the problem I'm
>> missing
>> here ?
>
> How do you "fix" that when you can't reach the tracepoint because you
> trip over a breakpoint and then while trying to fixup that stuff you hit
> another one?
I may still be missing something, but if the fixup code (AFAIU the code performing
the out-of-line single-stepping of the original instruction) belongs to a section
hidden from instrumentation, it should not be an issue.
The basic idea would be, e.g. pseudo-code for int3:
<int3> <---- in section which cannot be instrumented
if (recursion_ctx->in_tracer) {
single-step original instruction
iret
}
[...] prepare stuff
recursion_ctx->in_tracer = true;
instr_allowed()
call external kernel functions (which can be instrumented)
instr_disallowed()
recursion_ctx->in_tracer = false;
single-step original instruction
iret
The purpose of the "in_tracer" flag is to protect whatever is done within external
kernel functions (which can be instrumented) from triggering tracer recursion. It
needs to be combined with hiding of early/late low-level entry/exit functions from
instrumentation (as you propose) to work.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-10 17:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-09 17:02 Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-09 18:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-03-09 18:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-09 19:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-03-09 19:20 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-16 15:02 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-09 18:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-10 8:09 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-03-10 11:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-10 15:31 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-10 15:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-03-10 16:21 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-11 0:18 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-03-11 0:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-11 7:48 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-03-10 16:06 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-03-12 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-10 15:24 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-10 17:05 ` Daniel Thompson
2020-03-09 18:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-09 18:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-03-09 18:52 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-09 19:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-03-09 19:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-09 19:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-10 15:03 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-10 16:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-10 17:40 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [this message]
2020-03-10 18:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-10 18:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-10 1:40 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-10 8:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-10 16:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-17 17:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-03-09 20:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-03-09 20:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-09 20:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-03-09 21:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-09 23:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-03-10 2:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-10 15:13 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-10 16:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-03-10 17:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-03-10 17:26 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1666704263.23816.1583862003925.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome