Merge tag 'trace-v7.3-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-tracegrafted

Pull tracing fixes from Steven Rostedt:

 - Don't destroy user event fields when removal fails

   User event fields are destroyed before the event is removed from
   visibility. But that can fail leaving the still visible event with no
   fields. Move the destroying of the fields to after the event is
   successfully removed from visibility.

 - Initialize function graph state is fork before calling
   copy_exec_state()

   For non-CLONE_VM forks, copy_exec_state() allocates a new
   task_exec_state. If that allocation fails, ftrace_graph_exit_task()
   will free the tasks ret_stack pointer. Since that pointer is still
   using the parent's ret_stack, it mistakenly frees the parent's
   pointer too.

   Call ftrace_graph_init() on the task first which will NULL out the
   new tasks's ret_stack and if the copy fails, it will not free
   anything.

 - Remove FGRAPH_MAX_INDEX

   The macro FGRAPH_MAX_INDEX was added but never used. Remove it.

 - Save ent_size in function graph printing of nested functions

   The function graph tracer needs to look at the next event to see if
   the next event is the return of the current function entry. If it is,
   it prints a single line:

	ktime_get();

   Otherwise it prints it like a nested function:

	tick_nohz_irq_exit() {
	    ktime_get();
	    kcpustat_irq_exit();
	}

   In order to look at the next event, it must save the current event so
   that it has the information to print from it. It saves the event in
   the iterator descriptor called "ent". What it doesn't save is the
   ent_size of the event which is now used to know if the function graph
   arguments are to be printed. The peek doesn't save the size so the
   size used happens to be that of the size of the last event that was
   seen.

   Save the entry event size in the iterator descriptor so that the
   correct size is used.

 - Fix several errors with freeing data in the histogram code

   The histogram code had a lot of leaked or or incorrect accounting
   when failures happen. Correct them.

 - Fix histogram regression of .percent and .graph modifiers

   Up until 6.3 histogram values could have "percent" or "graph"
   modifiers that changed how they were printed. But a change that added
   restricting histograms values from being strings, stack traces and
   other modifiers inadvertently prevented them from using the percent
   and graph modifiers, which were legal use cases for values.

   Put back the percent and graph modifiers.

 - Fix various typos in the comments

 - Set the trace_clock before initializing a histogram with clock
   argument

   The histogram API allows the user to specific which trace clock to
   use via a "clock=" string. The histogram is set up first before the
   clock is checked. If the passed in clock is not valid, it exits
   without fully fixing up the histogram leaving it on the list and a
   use-after-free can trigger.

   Update the clock argument first and if it fails then exit gracefully
   before the histogram trigger is placed on any lists.

 - Restore :mod: trailer after parsing in ftrace_set_clr_event

   The function ftrace_set_clr_event() modifies the parse string and
   needs to put it back to what was passed in. It searches for ":mod:"
   via a strsep() but fails to put back the first ':' in the string.

   Add back the ':' in the passed in string.

 - Take trace_array reference when opening a tracer options file

   The options files are dynamically created and some tracers add their
   own options. When a tracer adds their own list of options, the
   trace_array holding them has an array to hold the list of options for
   each tracer. This array increases in size via a krealloc(), and the
   new entry gets a newly allocated array to hold the options of the new
   tracer being added.

   The element in each entry of the tracer's option array holds a
   pointer back to the trace_array, a pointer to the tracer it is
   associated to, a pointer to the flags of the option.

   The issue is that these arrays are freed when the trace_array is
   freed when its instance it represents is removed from the instances
   directory. There's a race that an open of one of these options files
   can happen when the instance is being removed.

   Add a new helper function to be called by the open function of the
   options file to iterate all existing trace_arrays under a lock and
   find the one that has the given option element in one of it's tracer
   arrays. If found, then update the associated trace_array's reference
   counter to keep it from being freed. If not found, have the open call
   return -ENODEV.

 - Disable interrupts when acquiring the lock in rb_wake_up_waiters()

   The function rb_wake_up_waiters() assumes it will be called in
   interrupt context and does not disable irqs when taking
   cpu_buffer->reader_lock, which can be called in hard interrupt
   context. The issue is in PREEMPT_RT, this function is called in
   thread context leaving this lock open to a deadlock.

   Take the lock with interrupts disabled.

 - Use rcu_assign_pointer() for tmp_ops filter hash

   The tmp_ops used in update_ftrace_direct_mod() assigns its
   filter_hash field directly, but that field is annotated as __rcu and
   sparse complains. Assign it with rcu_assign_pointer()

 - Fix use-after-free in enable_trigger_private_data_free()

   The trace_event_call is accessed through the event_trigger_data's
   trace_event_file pointer to put the trace_event_call on freeing. The
   issue is that the trace_event_file data may have been freed already
   causing a use-after-free. Add a field to the event_trigger_data that
   points directly to the trace_event_call so that it can decrement its
   reference directly without needing to go through the
   trace_event_file.

 - Fix accounting of buffer data remote headers

   trace_buffer_desc_size() and trace_remote_alloc_buffer() undercount
   the number of pages is needed for the asked for size as it doesn't
   take into account the meta data on each page. Add a helper function
   to do the calculation properly and use that in these functions.

 - Catch nr_page_va overflow in ring_buffer_desc sizing

   The number of pages per remote ring buffer is capped by
   ring_buffer_desc::nr_page_va (32 bits). A buffer_size large enough to
   overflow that field would silently allocate a descriptor smaller than
   what was asked for.

 - Do not resize the subbuf order if any per_cpu buffer is disabled

   The mmapping of ring buffers disables resizing the subbuffers, but it
   is done per-cpu whereas the subbuf size change is done for all the
   per_cpu buffers under the buffer->mutex. It could change the size of
   some while the mapping is happening on others. Have the resize of the
   subbuf order check all the per_cpu buffers under the lock to see if
   any of them is disabled before starting and causing an inconsistency
   between buffers that are being mapped.

* tag 'trace-v7.3-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace: (25 commits)
  ring-buffer: Check resize_disabled before publishing the new subbuf order
  tracing/remotes: Catch nr_page_va overflow in ring_buffer_desc sizing
  tracing/remotes: Account for ring buffer page header in size calculation
  tracing: Don't dereference trace_event_file in deferred trigger free
  ftrace: Use rcu_assign_pointer() for tmp_ops filter hash
  ring-buffer: Acquire the lock with irqsave in rb_wake_up_waiters()
  tracing: Take trace_array reference when opening a tracer options file
  tracing: Fix ring_buffer_read_page_size() kernel-doc
  tracing: Restore :mod: trailer after parsing in ftrace_set_clr_event()
  tracing: Fix memory corruption from a "STACKTRACE" histogram key
  tracing: Fix memory corruption from the histogram stacktrace modifier
  tracing: Undo the registration when enabling the histogram trigger fails
  tracing: Take the reference before publishing the named histogram trigger
  tracing: Set the trace clock before registering the histogram trigger
  tracing: Fix typo "preceeded" in comment
  tracing: Fix typo "availabe" in comment
  tracing: Let histogram values keep the percent and graph modifiers
  tracing: Keep the entry count when the histogram stats allocation fails
  tracing: Free histogram the field rejected for a bad modifier
  tracing: Free histogram the var ref when its initialization fails
  ...

1 files changed, 219 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst b/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..66fa400c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,219 @@
+.. _development_followthrough:
+
+Followthrough
+=============
+
+At this point, you have followed the guidelines given so far and, with the
+addition of your own engineering skills, have posted a perfect series of
+patches.  One of the biggest mistakes that even experienced kernel
+developers can make is to conclude that their work is now done.  In truth,
+posting patches indicates a transition into the next stage of the process,
+with, possibly, quite a bit of work yet to be done.
+
+It is a rare patch which is so good at its first posting that there is no
+room for improvement.  The kernel development process recognizes this fact,
+and, as a result, is heavily oriented toward the improvement of posted
+code.  You, as the author of that code, will be expected to work with the
+kernel community to ensure that your code is up to the kernel's quality
+standards.  A failure to participate in this process is quite likely to
+prevent the inclusion of your patches into the mainline.
+
+
+Working with reviewers
+----------------------
+
+A patch of any significance will result in a number of comments from other
+developers as they review the code.  Working with reviewers can be, for
+many developers, the most intimidating part of the kernel development
+process.  Life can be made much easier, though, if you keep a few things in
+mind:
+
+ - If you have explained your patch well, reviewers will understand its
+   value and why you went to the trouble of writing it.  But that value
+   will not keep them from asking a fundamental question: what will it be
+   like to maintain a kernel with this code in it five or ten years later?
+   Many of the changes you may be asked to make - from coding style tweaks
+   to substantial rewrites - come from the understanding that Linux will
+   still be around and under development a decade from now.
+
+ - Code review is hard work, and it is a relatively thankless occupation;
+   people remember who wrote kernel code, but there is little lasting fame
+   for those who reviewed it.  So reviewers can get grumpy, especially when
+   they see the same mistakes being made over and over again.  If you get a
+   review which seems angry, insulting, or outright offensive, resist the
+   impulse to respond in kind.  Code review is about the code, not about
+   the people, and code reviewers are not attacking you personally.
+
+ - Similarly, code reviewers are not trying to promote their employers'
+   agendas at the expense of your own.  Kernel developers often expect to
+   be working on the kernel years from now, but they understand that their
+   employer could change.  They truly are, almost without exception,
+   working toward the creation of the best kernel they can; they are not
+   trying to create discomfort for their employers' competitors.
+
+ - Be prepared for seemingly silly requests for coding style changes
+   and requests to factor out some of your code to shared parts of
+   the kernel. One job the maintainers do is to keep things looking
+   the same. Sometimes this means that the clever hack in your driver
+   to get around a problem actually needs to become a generalized
+   kernel feature ready for next time.
+
+What all of this comes down to is that, when reviewers send you comments,
+you need to pay attention to the technical observations that they are
+making.  Do not let their form of expression or your own pride keep that
+from happening.  When you get review comments on a patch, take the time to
+understand what the reviewer is trying to say.  If possible, fix the things
+that the reviewer is asking you to fix.  And respond back to the reviewer:
+thank them, and describe how you will answer their questions.
+
+Note that you do not have to agree with every change suggested by
+reviewers.  If you believe that the reviewer has misunderstood your code,
+explain what is really going on.  If you have a technical objection to a
+suggested change, describe it and justify your solution to the problem.  If
+your explanations make sense, the reviewer will accept them.  Should your
+explanation not prove persuasive, though, especially if others start to
+agree with the reviewer, take some time to think things over again.  It can
+be easy to become blinded by your own solution to a problem to the point
+that you don't realize that something is fundamentally wrong or, perhaps,
+you're not even solving the right problem.
+
+Andrew Morton has suggested that every review comment which does not result
+in a code change should result in an additional code comment instead; that
+can help future reviewers avoid the questions which came up the first time
+around.
+
+One fatal mistake is to ignore review comments in the hope that they will
+go away.  They will not go away.  If you repost code without having
+responded to the comments you got the time before, you're likely to find
+that your patches go nowhere.
+
+Speaking of reposting code: please bear in mind that reviewers are not
+going to remember all the details of the code you posted the last time
+around.  So it is always a good idea to remind reviewers of previously
+raised issues and how you dealt with them; the patch changelog is a good
+place for this kind of information.  Reviewers should not have to search
+through list archives to familiarize themselves with what was said last
+time; if you help them get a running start, they will be in a better mood
+when they revisit your code.
+
+What if you've tried to do everything right and things still aren't going
+anywhere?  Most technical disagreements can be resolved through discussion,
+but there are times when somebody simply has to make a decision.  If you
+honestly believe that this decision is going against you wrongly, you can
+always try appealing to a higher power.  As of this writing, that higher
+power tends to be Andrew Morton.  Andrew has a great deal of respect in the
+kernel development community; he can often unjam a situation which seems to
+be hopelessly blocked.  Appealing to Andrew should not be done lightly,
+though, and not before all other alternatives have been explored.  And bear
+in mind, of course, that he may not agree with you either.
+
+
+What happens next
+-----------------
+
+If a patch is considered to be a good thing to add to the kernel, and once
+most of the review issues have been resolved, the next step is usually
+entry into a subsystem maintainer's tree.  How that works varies from one
+subsystem to the next; each maintainer has his or her own way of doing
+things.  In particular, there may be more than one tree - one, perhaps,
+dedicated to patches planned for the next merge window, and another for
+longer-term work.
+
+For patches applying to areas for which there is no obvious subsystem tree
+(memory management patches, for example), the default tree often ends up
+being -mm.  Patches which affect multiple subsystems can also end up going
+through the -mm tree.
+
+Inclusion into a subsystem tree can bring a higher level of visibility to a
+patch.  Now other developers working with that tree will get the patch by
+default.  Subsystem trees typically feed linux-next as well, making their
+contents visible to the development community as a whole.  At this point,
+there's a good chance that you will get more comments from a new set of
+reviewers; these comments need to be answered as in the previous round.
+
+What may also happen at this point, depending on the nature of your patch,
+is that conflicts with work being done by others turn up.  In the worst
+case, heavy patch conflicts can result in some work being put on the back
+burner so that the remaining patches can be worked into shape and merged.
+Other times, conflict resolution will involve working with the other
+developers and, possibly, moving some patches between trees to ensure that
+everything applies cleanly.  This work can be a pain, but count your
+blessings: before the advent of the linux-next tree, these conflicts often
+only turned up during the merge window and had to be addressed in a hurry.
+Now they can be resolved at leisure, before the merge window opens.
+
+Some day, if all goes well, you'll log on and see that your patch has been
+merged into the mainline kernel.  Congratulations!  Once the celebration is
+complete (and you have added yourself to the MAINTAINERS file), though, it
+is worth remembering an important little fact: the job still is not done.
+Merging into the mainline brings its own challenges.
+
+To begin with, the visibility of your patch has increased yet again.  There
+may be a new round of comments from developers who had not been aware of
+the patch before.  It may be tempting to ignore them, since there is no
+longer any question of your code being merged.  Resist that temptation,
+though; you still need to be responsive to developers who have questions or
+suggestions.
+
+More importantly, though: inclusion into the mainline puts your code into
+the hands of a much larger group of testers.  Even if you have contributed
+a driver for hardware which is not yet available, you will be surprised by
+how many people will build your code into their kernels.  And, of course,
+where there are testers, there will be bug reports.
+
+The worst sort of bug reports are regressions.  If your patch causes a
+regression, you'll find an uncomfortable number of eyes upon you;
+regressions need to be fixed as soon as possible.  If you are unwilling or
+unable to fix the regression (and nobody else does it for you), your patch
+will almost certainly be removed during the stabilization period.  Beyond
+negating all of the work you have done to get your patch into the mainline,
+having a patch pulled as the result of a failure to fix a regression could
+well make it harder for you to get work merged in the future.
+
+After any regressions have been dealt with, there may be other, ordinary
+bugs to deal with.  The stabilization period is your best opportunity to
+fix these bugs and ensure that your code's debut in a mainline kernel
+release is as solid as possible.  So, please, answer bug reports, and fix
+the problems if at all possible.  That's what the stabilization period is
+for; you can start creating cool new patches once any problems with the old
+ones have been taken care of.
+
+And don't forget that there are other milestones which may also create bug
+reports: the next mainline stable release, when prominent distributors pick
+up a version of the kernel containing your patch, etc.  Continuing to
+respond to these reports is a matter of basic pride in your work.  If that
+is insufficient motivation, though, it's also worth considering that the
+development community remembers developers who lose interest in their code
+after it's merged.  The next time you post a patch, they will be evaluating
+it with the assumption that you will not be around to maintain it
+afterward.
+
+
+Other things that can happen
+-----------------------------
+
+One day, you may open your mail client and see that somebody has mailed you
+a patch to your code.  That is one of the advantages of having your code
+out there in the open, after all.  If you agree with the patch, you can
+either forward it on to the subsystem maintainer (be sure to include a
+proper From: line so that the attribution is correct, and add a signoff of
+your own), or send an Acked-by: response back and let the original poster
+send it upward.
+
+If you disagree with the patch, send a polite response explaining why.  If
+possible, tell the author what changes need to be made to make the patch
+acceptable to you.  There is a certain resistance to merging patches which
+are opposed by the author and maintainer of the code, but it only goes so
+far.  If you are seen as needlessly blocking good work, those patches will
+eventually flow around you and get into the mainline anyway.  In the Linux
+kernel, nobody has absolute veto power over any code.  Except maybe Linus.
+
+On very rare occasion, you may see something completely different: another
+developer posts a different solution to your problem.  At that point,
+chances are that one of the two patches will not be merged, and "mine was
+here first" is not considered to be a compelling technical argument.  If
+somebody else's patch displaces yours and gets into the mainline, there is
+really only one way to respond: be pleased that your problem got solved and
+get on with your work.  Having one's work shoved aside in this manner can
+be hurtful and discouraging, but the community will remember your reaction
+long after they have forgotten whose patch actually got merged.