From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751408AbaKFQNU (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:13:20 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56524 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750963AbaKFQNR (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:13:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:13:13 +0100 From: Petr Mladek To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Jiri Kosina , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/12 v3] tracing: Create seq_buf layer in trace_seq Message-ID: <20141106161313.GI2001@dhcp128.suse.cz> References: <20141104155237.228431433@goodmis.org> <20141104160221.864997179@goodmis.org> <20141105142222.GC4570@pathway.suse.cz> <20141105134147.226a23ef@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141105134147.226a23ef@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 2014-11-05 13:41:47, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 15:22:22 +0100 > Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Tue 2014-11-04 10:52:40, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" > > Also I would add an explanation of the overall logic. If I get it > > correctly from the code, it is: > > > > /* > > * The last byte of the buffer is used to detect an overflow in some > > * operations. Therefore, the buffer offers (@size - 1) bytes for valid > > * data. > > Well, this will change in the future. And it is commented with the > seq_buf_has_overflowed() function. I don't want to comment about it > with the structure. Fair enough. > > > + */ > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > + > > > +/* How much buffer is left on the seq_buf? */ > > > > I would write the following to explain the -1: > > Later patches gets rid of the -1. It's -1 because seq_file is -1 as > well. Yup. Let's leave it as is. > > > > /* How much buffer is left for valid data */ > > > > > +#define SEQ_BUF_LEFT(s) (((s)->size - 1) - (s)->len) > > > > Hmm, it might overflow when the buffer has overflown (s->len == s->size) > > or when the buffer is not initialized (s->size == 0). Note that the > > result should be unsigned int. > > The two places that use it is "unsigned int" so that should not be a > problem. It might overflow. If ("size == len"), the result will be -1 which is UINT_MAX. Well, this should not happen if callers check the overflow before any use. Also we are going to remove the -1 in the followup patches. I am fine with it after all. > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * seq_buf_puts - sequence printing of simple string > > > + * @s: seq_buf descriptor > > > + * @str: simple string to record > > > + * > > > + * Copy a simple string into the sequence buffer. > > > + * > > > + * Returns zero on success, -1 on overflow > > > + */ > > > +int seq_buf_puts(struct seq_buf *s, const char *str) > > > +{ > > > + unsigned int len = strlen(str); > > > + > > > + WARN_ON(s->size == 0); > > > + > > > + if (s->len + len < s->size) { > > > + memcpy(s->buffer + s->len, str, len); > > > + s->len += len; > > > + return 0; > > > + } > > > > We might want to copy the maximum possible number of bytes. > > It will then behave the same as the other functions. > > I'm converting all this to be like seq_file in the other patches. Fair enough. > > > > > > + * > > > + * Returns -EFAULT if the copy to userspace fails. > > > + */ > > > +int seq_buf_to_user(struct seq_buf *s, char __user *ubuf, int cnt) > > > +{ > > > + int len; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + if (!cnt) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + if (s->len <= s->readpos) > > > + return -EBUSY; > > > + > > > + len = s->len - s->readpos; > > > + if (cnt > len) > > > + cnt = len; > > > + ret = copy_to_user(ubuf, s->buffer + s->readpos, cnt); > > > + if (ret == cnt) > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > + > > > + cnt -= ret; > > > + > > > + s->readpos += cnt; > > > + return cnt; > > > +} > > > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_seq.c b/kernel/trace/trace_seq.c > > > index 1f24ed99dca2..960ccfb2f50c 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_seq.c > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_seq.c > > > @@ -27,10 +27,19 @@ > > > #include > > > > > > /* How much buffer is left on the trace_seq? */ > > > -#define TRACE_SEQ_BUF_LEFT(s) ((PAGE_SIZE - 1) - (s)->len) > > > +#define TRACE_SEQ_BUF_LEFT(s) ((PAGE_SIZE - 1) - (s)->seq.len) > > > > This might overflow when s->len == PAGE_SIZE. I think that it > > newer happenes because we always check s->full before. The question > > is if we really want to depend on this. > > Yeah, we should make this check seq_buf itself. Maybe make a static > inline function that is in seq_buf.h. The inline function in seq_buf.h looks like a good idea. > > > > > /* How much buffer is written? */ > > > -#define TRACE_SEQ_BUF_USED(s) min((s)->len, (unsigned int)(PAGE_SIZE - 1)) > > > +#define TRACE_SEQ_BUF_USED(s) min((s)->seq.len, (unsigned int)(PAGE_SIZE - 1)) > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * trace_seq should work with being initialized with 0s. > > > + */ > > > +static inline void __trace_seq_init(struct trace_seq *s) > > > +{ > > > + if (unlikely(!s->seq.size)) > > > + trace_seq_init(s); > > > +} > > > > > > /** > > > * trace_print_seq - move the contents of trace_seq into a seq_file > > > @@ -43,10 +52,11 @@ > > > */ > > > int trace_print_seq(struct seq_file *m, struct trace_seq *s) > > > { > > > - unsigned int len = TRACE_SEQ_BUF_USED(s); > > > int ret; > > > > > > - ret = seq_write(m, s->buffer, len); > > > + __trace_seq_init(s); > > > + > > > + ret = seq_buf_print_seq(m, &s->seq); > > > > > > /* > > > * Only reset this buffer if we successfully wrote to the > > > @@ -77,25 +87,25 @@ int trace_print_seq(struct seq_file *m, struct trace_seq *s) > > > */ > > > int trace_seq_printf(struct trace_seq *s, const char *fmt, ...) > > > { > > > - unsigned int len = TRACE_SEQ_BUF_LEFT(s); > > > + unsigned int save_len = s->seq.len; > > > va_list ap; > > > - int ret; > > > > > > - if (s->full || !len) > > > + if (s->full) > > > return 0; > > > > > > + __trace_seq_init(s); > > > + > > > va_start(ap, fmt); > > > - ret = vsnprintf(s->buffer + s->len, len, fmt, ap); > > > + seq_buf_vprintf(&s->seq, fmt, ap); > > > va_end(ap); > > > > > > /* If we can't write it all, don't bother writing anything */ > > > - if (ret >= len) { > > > + if (unlikely(seq_buf_has_overflowed(&s->seq))) { > > > > We might check the return value from seq_buf_vprintf() here. > > No, we are working to get rid of the return values for the seq_*() > functions (with a few exceptions). One now must check if the buffer has > overflowed, and not the return value of the seq_*() functions > themselves. I see. > There's already patches out to convert the seq_file calls as well. Good to know. Best Regards, Petr