lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 0/4] tracing: tweaks for generic syscall events
    On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:42:08PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 02:43:10PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
    > > > > This patch series moves the callbacks for the syscall tracepoints to the
    > > > > definition site, and adds generic TRACE_EVENTs which capture all syscall
    > > > > arguments.
    > > > >
    > > > > New in v3:
    > > > > - Give the thread flag a more generic name: TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT.
    > > > > - Move the regfuncs to arch-specific files, per Jason's suggestion.
    > > > > - Change _WITH_CALLBACK to just _FN, per Ingo's suggestion.
    > > > >
    > > > > New in v4:
    > > > > - Give the config flag a more generic name: HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS.
    > > > > - Undo the arch reorg of the regfuncs, but conditionalize on above.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Sample trace output:
    > > > > sendmail-974 [000] 55665.464492: sys_enter: NR 14 (1, 7fff60f3af40, 7fff60f3aec0, 8, 0, 7fb1b6a05161)
    > > > >
    > > > > sendmail-974 [000] 55665.464496: sys_exit: NR 14 = 0
    > > > >
    > > > > sendmail-974 [000] 55665.464507: sys_enter: NR 23 (5, 7fff60f3b0d0, 0, 0, 7fff60f3b150, 7fff60f3ef01)
    > > > >
    > > > > sshd-978 [000] 55667.845359: sys_exit: NR 23 = 1
    > > > >
    > > > > sshd-978 [000] 55667.845373: sys_enter: NR 14 (0, 7fffc645ce90, 7fffc645cf10, 8, 0, 101010101010101)
    > > > >
    > > > > sshd-978 [000] 55667.845381: sys_exit: NR 14 = 0
    > > > >
    > > > > sshd-978 [000] 55667.845383: sys_enter: NR 14 (2, 7fffc645cf10, 0, 8, 0, 101010101010101)
    > > > >
    > > > > sshd-978 [000] 55667.845386: sys_exit: NR 14 = 0
    > > > >
    > > > > sshd-978 [000] 55667.845395: sys_enter: NR 0 (3, 7fffc6458f80, 4000, 1, 0, 0)
    > > > >
    > > > > sshd-978 [000] 55667.845478: sys_exit: NR 0 = 48
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com>
    > > > > Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
    > > > > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
    > > > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
    > > > > Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
    > > > > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
    > > > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
    > > > > Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
    > > > > Cc: Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@google.com>
    > > > > Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
    > > > > Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
    > > > > Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
    > >
    > > How about compat syscalls? If we touch this code we better cover
    > > them as well.
    > >
    > > Ingo
    >
    >
    > They should be covered by these generic tracepoint I guess.
    > The remaining bits that are necessary to cover individual compat syscall
    > tracepoints are the missing DEFINE_SYSCALL() uses in fs/compat.c
    >

    right, the compat layer as well as the core kernel need additional
    DEFINE_SYSCALL() macros to catch all the the syscalls. However, I think
    the compat layer is a bit more involved in that it often makes use of
    the core kernel syscalls, but the mapping between syscall number is
    different. So, we need another array, or to augment the existing one, to
    cover the compat syscalls. We also need to detect 32-bit processes in
    the syscall entry path to determine which array to use, and we need to
    grab the arguments differently. So there is a bunch of work here.

    Also, we have the question of whether we need separate entries in the
    events/syscalls directly for 32-bit process syscalls that call the same
    64-bit syscall interfaces. Should they be parsed as 64-bit argument
    values event thought they are 32-bit? To reduce complexity, I would say
    the 32-bit syscall entries should be the same as the 64-bit ones. That
    said there will be a bunch of new "compat_sys*" etc. entries.


    > Is someone willing to cover them?
    >

    I can take a stab at it.

    thanks,

    -Jason


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-25 16:45    [W:0.027 / U:59.744 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site