From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ftrace/core 2/2] ftrace, kprobes: Support IPMODIFY flag to find IP modify conflict
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:41:02 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tx7rao6p.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5397B0A1.7060401@hitachi.com> (Masami Hiramatsu's message of "Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:28:01 +0900")
Hi Masami,
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:28:01 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/06/10 22:53), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Masami,
>>
>> 2014-06-10 (화), 10:50 +0000, Masami Hiramatsu:
>>> Introduce FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY to avoid conflict among
>>> ftrace users who may modify regs->ip to change the execution
>>> path. This also adds the flag to kprobe_ftrace_ops, since
>>> ftrace-based kprobes already modifies regs->ip. Thus, if
>>> another user modifies the regs->ip on the same function entry,
>>> one of them will be broken. So both should add IPMODIFY flag
>>> and make sure that ftrace_set_filter_ip() succeeds.
>>>
>>> Note that currently conflicts of IPMODIFY are detected on the
>>> filter hash. It does NOT care about the notrace hash. This means
>>> that if you set filter hash all functions and notrace(mask)
>>> some of them, the IPMODIFY flag will be applied to all
>>> functions.
>>>
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>> +static int __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify(struct ftrace_ops *ops,
>>> + struct ftrace_hash *old_hash,
>>> + struct ftrace_hash *new_hash)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ftrace_page *pg;
>>> + struct dyn_ftrace *rec, *end = NULL;
>>> + int in_old, in_new;
>>> +
>>> + /* Only update if the ops has been registered */
>>> + if (!(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_ENABLED))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + if (!(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_SAVE_REGS) ||
>>> + !(ops->flags & FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + /* Update rec->flags */
>>> + do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) {
>>> + /* We need to update only differences of filter_hash */
>>> + in_old = !old_hash || ftrace_lookup_ip(old_hash, rec->ip);
>>> + in_new = !new_hash || ftrace_lookup_ip(new_hash, rec->ip);
>>
>> Why not use ftrace_hash_empty() here instead of checking NULL?
>
> Ah, a trick is here. Since an empty filter_hash must hit all, we can not
> enable/disable filter_hash if we use ftrace_hash_empty() here.
>
> To enabling the new_hash, old_hash must be EMPTY_HASH which means in_old
> always be false. To disabling, new_hash is EMPTY_HASH too.
> Please see ftrace_hash_ipmodify_enable/disable/update().
I'm confused. 8-p I guess what you want to do is checking records in
either of the filter_hash, right? If so, what about this?
in_old = !ftrace_hash_empty(old_hash) && ftrace_lookup_ip(old_hash, rec->ip);
in_new = !ftrace_hash_empty(new_hash) && ftrace_lookup_ip(new_hash, rec->ip);
>
>> Also
>> return value of ftrace_lookup_ip is not boolean.. maybe you need to
>> add !! or convert type of the in_{old,new} to bool.
>
> Yeah, I see. And there is '||' (logical OR) which evaluates the result
> as boolean. :)
Argh... you're right! :)
>
>>
>>
>>> + if (in_old == in_new)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + if (in_new) {
>>> + /* New entries must ensure no others are using it */
>>> + if (rec->flags & FTRACE_FL_IPMODIFY)
>>> + goto rollback;
>>> + rec->flags |= FTRACE_FL_IPMODIFY;
>>> + } else /* Removed entry */
>>> + rec->flags &= ~FTRACE_FL_IPMODIFY;
>>> + } while_for_each_ftrace_rec();
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> +rollback:
>>> + end = rec;
>>> +
>>> + /* Roll back what we did above */
>>> + do_for_each_ftrace_rec(pg, rec) {
>>> + if (rec == end)
>>> + goto err_out;
>>> +
>>> + in_old = !old_hash || ftrace_lookup_ip(old_hash, rec->ip);
>>> + in_new = !new_hash || ftrace_lookup_ip(new_hash, rec->ip);
>>> + if (in_old == in_new)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + if (in_new)
>>> + rec->flags &= ~FTRACE_FL_IPMODIFY;
>>> + else
>>> + rec->flags |= FTRACE_FL_IPMODIFY;
>>> + } while_for_each_ftrace_rec();
>>> +
>>> +err_out:
>>> + return -EBUSY;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int ftrace_hash_ipmodify_enable(struct ftrace_ops *ops)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ftrace_hash *hash = ops->filter_hash;
>>> +
>>> + if (ftrace_hash_empty(hash))
>>> + hash = NULL;
>>> +
>>> + return __ftrace_hash_update_ipmodify(ops, EMPTY_HASH, hash);
>>> +}
>>
>> Please see above comment. You can pass an empty hash as is, or pass
>> NULL as second arg. The same goes to below...
>
> As I said above, that is by design :). EMPTY_HASH means it hits nothing,
> NULL means it hits all.
But doesn't it make unrelated records also get the flag updated? I'm
curious when new_hash can be empty on _enable() case..
Thanks,
Namhyung
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-11 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-10 10:50 [PATCH ftrace/core 0/2] ftrace, kprobes: Introduce IPMODIFY flag for ftrace_ops to detect conflicts Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-10 10:50 ` [PATCH ftrace/core 1/2] ftrace: Simplify ftrace_hash_disable/enable path in ftrace_hash_move Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-10 10:50 ` [PATCH ftrace/core 2/2] ftrace, kprobes: Support IPMODIFY flag to find IP modify conflict Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-10 13:53 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-06-11 1:28 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-11 7:41 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2014-06-12 3:29 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-12 5:38 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-06-12 6:06 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-12 5:54 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-06-12 6:57 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-11 16:58 ` [PATCH ftrace/core 0/2] ftrace, kprobes: Introduce IPMODIFY flag for ftrace_ops to detect conflicts Josh Poimboeuf
2014-06-12 3:28 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-06-12 12:50 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2014-06-12 5:44 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-06-12 12:43 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2014-06-13 10:09 ` Masami Hiramatsu
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=87tx7rao6p.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).