[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Early task context tracking
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:47 AM Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
<> wrote:
> On 4/4/19 2:01 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> To resolve this problem, the set/unset of the IRQ/NMI context needs to
> >> be done before the execution of the first C execution, and after its
> >> return. By doing so, and using this method to identify the context in the
> >> trace recursion protection, no more events are lost.
> > I would much rather do the opposite: completely remove context
> > tracking from the asm and, instead, stick it into the C code. We'd
> > need to make sure that the C code is totally immune from tracing,
> > kprobes, etc, but it would be a nice cleanup. And then you could fix
> > this bug in C!
> >
> >
> Humm... what we could do to have things in C is to set the variable right at the
> begin of the C handler, e.g., do_IRQ(), and right before the return.
> But by doing this we would have a problem with two things:
> 1) irq handler itself (e.g., do_IRQ())
> 2) functions/tracepoints that might run before and after the handler execution
> (e.g., preemptirq tracer), but still in the IRQ context.
> We can work around the first case by checking if (the function is in the
> __irq_entry .text section) in the recursion control.
> The second case would still be a problem. For instance, the preemptirq:
> tracepoints in the preemptirq tracer would be "dropped" in the case of a
> miss-identification of a recursion.
> Thinking aloud: should we try to move the preemptirq tracers to the C part?

I think we should try to move as much as possible to the C part.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-08 18:09    [W:0.081 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site