On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 22:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 9:39 PM Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 17:11 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/diag/fw_tracer.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/diag/fw_tracer.c
> > > @@ -557,16 +557,16 @@ static void mlx5_tracer_print_trace(struct
> > > tracer_string_format *str_frmt,
> > > struct mlx5_core_dev *dev,
> > > u64 trace_timestamp)
> > > {
> > > - char tmp[512];
> > > -
> >
> > Hi Arnd, thanks for the patch,
> > this function is very perfomance critical when fw traces are
> > activated
> > to pull some fw content on error situations, using kmalloc here
> > might
> > become a problem and stall the system further more if the problem
> > was
> > initially due to lack of memory.
> >
> > since this function only needs 512 bytes maybe we should mark it as
> > noinline to avoid any extra stack usages on the caller function
> > mlx5_fw_tracer_handle_traces ?
>
> That would shut up the warning, but doesn't sound right either.
>
> If it's performance critical indeed, maybe the best solution would
> be to also avoid the snprintf(), as that is also a rather heavyweight
> function?
>
> I could not find an easy solution for this, but I did notice the
> unusual way
> this deals with a variable format string passed into
> mlx5_tracer_print_trace
> along with a set of parameters, which opens up a set of possible
> format string vulnerabilities as well as making
> mlx5_tracer_print_trace()
> a bit expensive. You also take a mutex and free memory in there,
> which obviously then also got allocated in the fast path.
>
> To do this right, a better approach may be to just rely on ftrace,
> storing
> the (pointer to the) format string and the arguments in the buffer
> without
> creating a string. Would that be an option here?
I am not sure how this would work, since the format parameters can
changes depending on the FW string and the specific traces.
>
> A more minimal approach might be to move what is now the on-stack
> buffer into the mlx5_fw_tracer function. I see that you already store
> a copy of the string in there from mlx5_fw_tracer_save_trace(),
> which conveniently also holds a mutex already that protects
> it from concurrent access.
>
This sounds plausible.
So for now let's do this or the noinline approach, Please let me know
which one do you prefer, if it is the mutex protected buffer, i can do
it myself.
I will open an internal task and discussion then address your valuable
points in a future submission, since we already in rc8 I don't want to
take the risk now.
Thanks for your feedback !
Saeed.
> Arnd
