| Message ID | 7027b9b6b0cae2921ff65739582ae499bf61470c.1648049113.git.andreyknvl@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | kasan, arm64, scs, stacktrace: collect stack traces from Shadow Call Stack | expand |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 16:33, <andrey.konovalov@linux.dev> wrote: > > From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> > > Now that stack_trace_save_shadow() is implemented by arm64, use it > whenever CONFIG_HAVE_SHADOW_STACKTRACE is enabled. This improves the > boot time of a defconfig build by ~30% for all KASAN modes. > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com> > --- > mm/kasan/common.c | 9 ++++++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/kasan/common.c b/mm/kasan/common.c > index d9079ec11f31..8d9d35c6562b 100644 > --- a/mm/kasan/common.c > +++ b/mm/kasan/common.c > @@ -33,10 +33,13 @@ > depot_stack_handle_t kasan_save_stack(gfp_t flags, bool can_alloc) > { > unsigned long entries[KASAN_STACK_DEPTH]; > - unsigned int nr_entries; > + unsigned int size; Why did this variable name change? > - nr_entries = stack_trace_save(entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries), 0); > - return __stack_depot_save(entries, nr_entries, flags, can_alloc); > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_SHADOW_STACKTRACE)) Would it be more reliable to check the return-code? I.e. do: int size; size = stack_trace_save_shadow(...) if (size < 0) size = stack_trace_save(...); > + size = stack_trace_save_shadow(entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries), 0); > + else > + size = stack_trace_save(entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries), 0); > + return __stack_depot_save(entries, size, flags, can_alloc); > } > > void kasan_set_track(struct kasan_track *track, gfp_t flags) > -- > 2.25.1
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 2:49 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/mm/kasan/common.c b/mm/kasan/common.c > > index d9079ec11f31..8d9d35c6562b 100644 > > --- a/mm/kasan/common.c > > +++ b/mm/kasan/common.c > > @@ -33,10 +33,13 @@ > > depot_stack_handle_t kasan_save_stack(gfp_t flags, bool can_alloc) > > { > > unsigned long entries[KASAN_STACK_DEPTH]; > > - unsigned int nr_entries; > > + unsigned int size; > > Why did this variable name change? So the lines below fit within one line. It won't be needed with the other change you suggested. > > - nr_entries = stack_trace_save(entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries), 0); > > - return __stack_depot_save(entries, nr_entries, flags, can_alloc); > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_SHADOW_STACKTRACE)) > > Would it be more reliable to check the return-code? I.e. do: > > int size; > > size = stack_trace_save_shadow(...) > if (size < 0) > size = stack_trace_save(...); Sounds good, will do in v3. Thanks!
diff --git a/mm/kasan/common.c b/mm/kasan/common.c index d9079ec11f31..8d9d35c6562b 100644 --- a/mm/kasan/common.c +++ b/mm/kasan/common.c @@ -33,10 +33,13 @@ depot_stack_handle_t kasan_save_stack(gfp_t flags, bool can_alloc) { unsigned long entries[KASAN_STACK_DEPTH]; - unsigned int nr_entries; + unsigned int size; - nr_entries = stack_trace_save(entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries), 0); - return __stack_depot_save(entries, nr_entries, flags, can_alloc); + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_SHADOW_STACKTRACE)) + size = stack_trace_save_shadow(entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries), 0); + else + size = stack_trace_save(entries, ARRAY_SIZE(entries), 0); + return __stack_depot_save(entries, size, flags, can_alloc); } void kasan_set_track(struct kasan_track *track, gfp_t flags)