Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Juergen Gross <JGross@suse.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/8] x86/entry: Move irq tracing on syscall entry to C-code
In-Reply-To: <83D8A083-792A-4A82-985C-CAC33BC702DB@amacapital.net>
References: <20200226081726.GQ18400@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <83D8A083-792A-4A82-985C-CAC33BC702DB@amacapital.net>
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:51:01 +0100
Message-ID: <87sgixb00q.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> writes:
>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> ﻿On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 09:43:46PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Your earlier patches suggest quite strongly that tracing isn't safe
>>> until enter_from_user_mode().  But trace_hardirqs_off() calls
>>> trace_irq_disable_rcuidle(), which looks [0] like a tracepoint.
>>> 
>>> Did you perhaps mean to do this *after* enter_from_user_mode()?
>> 
>> aside from the fact that enter_from_user_mode() itself also has a
>> tracepoint, the crucial detail is that we must not trace/kprobe the
>> function calling this.
>> 
>> Specifically for #PF, because we need read_cr2() before this. See later
>> patches.
>
> Indeed. I’m fine with this patch, but I still don’t understand what
> the changelog is about.

Yeah, the changelog is not really helpful. Let me fix that.

> And I’m still rather baffled by most of the notrace annotations in the
> series.

As discussed on IRC, this might be too broad, but then I rather have the
actual C-entry points neither traceable nor probable in general and
relax this by calling functions which can be traced and probed.

My rationale for this decision was that enter_from_user_mode() is marked
notrace/noprobe as well, so I kept the protection scope the same as we
had in the ASM maze which is marked noprobe already.

Thanks,

        tglx