On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 08:01:34 +0200 Artem Savkov <asavkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But looking at [0] and briefly reading some of the discussions you, > > Steven, had. I'm just wondering if it would be best to avoid > > increasing struct trace_entry altogether? It seems like preempt_count > > is actually a 4-bit field in trace context, so it doesn't seem like we > > really need to allocate an entire byte for both preempt_count and > > preempt_lazy_count. Why can't we just combine them and not waste 8 > > extra bytes for each trace event in a ring buffer? > > > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git/commit/?id=b1773eac3f29cbdcdfd16e0339f1a164066e9f71 > > I agree that avoiding increase in struct trace_entry size would be very > desirable, but I have no knowledge whether rt developers had reasons to > do it like this. > > Nevertheless I think the issue with verifier running against a wrong > struct still needs to be addressed. Correct. My Ack is based on the current way things are done upstream. It was just that linux-rt showed the issue, where the code was not as robust as it should have been. To me this was a correctness issue, not an issue that had to do with how things are done in linux-rt. As for the changes in linux-rt, they are not upstream yet. I'll have my comments on that code when that happens. -- Steve
