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, 196 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..185651d87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/7.AdvancedTopics.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+.. _development_advancedtopics:
+
+Advanced topics
+===============
+
+At this point, hopefully, you have a handle on how the development process
+works.  There is still more to learn, however!  This section will cover a
+number of topics which can be helpful for developers wanting to become a
+regular part of the Linux kernel development process.
+
+Managing patches with git
+-------------------------
+
+The use of distributed version control for the kernel began in early 2002,
+when Linus first started playing with the proprietary BitKeeper
+application.  While BitKeeper was controversial, the approach to software
+version management it embodied most certainly was not.  Distributed version
+control enabled an immediate acceleration of the kernel development
+project.  In current times, there are several free alternatives to
+BitKeeper.  For better or for worse, the kernel project has settled on git
+as its tool of choice.
+
+Managing patches with git can make life much easier for the developer,
+especially as the volume of those patches grows.  Git also has its rough
+edges and poses certain hazards; it is a young and powerful tool which is
+still being civilized by its developers.  This document will not attempt to
+teach the reader how to use git; that would be sufficient material for a
+long document in its own right.  Instead, the focus here will be on how git
+fits into the kernel development process in particular.  Developers who
+wish to come up to speed with git will find more information at:
+
+	https://git-scm.com/
+
+	https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html
+
+and on various tutorials found on the web.
+
+The first order of business is to read the above sites and get a solid
+understanding of how git works before trying to use it to make patches
+available to others.  A git-using developer should be able to obtain a copy
+of the mainline repository, explore the revision history, commit changes to
+the tree, use branches, etc.  An understanding of git's tools for the
+rewriting of history (such as rebase) is also useful.  Git comes with its
+own terminology and concepts; a new user of git should know about refs,
+remote branches, the index, fast-forward merges, pushes and pulls, detached
+heads, etc.  It can all be a little intimidating at the outset, but the
+concepts are not that hard to grasp with a bit of study.
+
+Using git to generate patches for submission by email can be a good
+exercise while coming up to speed.
+
+When you are ready to start putting up git trees for others to look at, you
+will, of course, need a server that can be pulled from.  Setting up such a
+server with git-daemon is relatively straightforward if you have a system
+which is accessible to the Internet.  Otherwise, free, public hosting sites
+(GitHub, for example) are starting to appear on the net.  Established
+developers can get an account on kernel.org, but those are not easy to come
+by; see https://kernel.org/faq/ for more information.
+
+The normal git workflow involves the use of a lot of branches.  Each line
+of development can be separated into a separate "topic branch" and
+maintained independently.  Branches in git are cheap, there is no reason to
+not make free use of them.  And, in any case, you should not do your
+development in any branch which you intend to ask others to pull from.
+Publicly-available branches should be created with care; merge in patches
+from development branches when they are in complete form and ready to go -
+not before.
+
+Git provides some powerful tools which can allow you to rewrite your
+development history.  An inconvenient patch (one which breaks bisection,
+say, or which has some other sort of obvious bug) can be fixed in place or
+made to disappear from the history entirely.  A patch series can be
+rewritten as if it had been written on top of today's mainline, even though
+you have been working on it for months.  Changes can be transparently
+shifted from one branch to another.  And so on.  Judicious use of git's
+ability to revise history can help in the creation of clean patch sets with
+fewer problems.
+
+Excessive use of this capability can lead to other problems, though, beyond
+a simple obsession for the creation of the perfect project history.
+Rewriting history will rewrite the changes contained in that history,
+turning a tested (hopefully) kernel tree into an untested one.  But, beyond
+that, developers cannot easily collaborate if they do not have a shared
+view of the project history; if you rewrite history which other developers
+have pulled into their repositories, you will make life much more difficult
+for those developers.  So a simple rule of thumb applies here: history
+which has been exported to others should generally be seen as immutable
+thereafter.
+
+So, once you push a set of changes to your publicly-available server, those
+changes should not be rewritten.  Git will attempt to enforce this rule if
+you try to push changes which do not result in a fast-forward merge
+(i.e. changes which do not share the same history).  It is possible to
+override this check, and there may be times when it is necessary to rewrite
+an exported tree.  Moving changesets between trees to avoid conflicts in
+linux-next is one example.  But such actions should be rare.  This is one
+of the reasons why development should be done in private branches (which
+can be rewritten if necessary) and only moved into public branches when
+it's in a reasonably advanced state.
+
+As the mainline (or other tree upon which a set of changes is based)
+advances, it is tempting to merge with that tree to stay on the leading
+edge.  For a private branch, rebasing can be an easy way to keep up with
+another tree, but rebasing is not an option once a tree is exported to the
+world.  Once that happens, a full merge must be done.  Merging occasionally
+makes good sense, but overly frequent merges can clutter the history
+needlessly.  Suggested technique in this case is to merge infrequently, and
+generally only at specific release points (such as a mainline -rc
+release).  If you are nervous about specific changes, you can always
+perform test merges in a private branch.  The git "rerere" tool can be
+useful in such situations; it remembers how merge conflicts were resolved
+so that you don't have to do the same work twice.
+
+One of the biggest recurring complaints about tools like git is this: the
+mass movement of patches from one repository to another makes it easy to
+slip in ill-advised changes which go into the mainline below the review
+radar.  Kernel developers tend to get unhappy when they see that kind of
+thing happening; putting up a git tree with unreviewed or off-topic patches
+can affect your ability to get trees pulled in the future.  Quoting Linus:
+
+::
+
+	You can send me patches, but for me to pull a git patch from you, I
+	need to know that you know what you're doing, and I need to be able
+	to trust things *without* then having to go and check every
+	individual change by hand.
+
+(https://lwn.net/Articles/224135/).
+
+To avoid this kind of situation, ensure that all patches within a given
+branch stick closely to the associated topic; a "driver fixes" branch
+should not be making changes to the core memory management code.  And, most
+importantly, do not use a git tree to bypass the review process.  Post an
+occasional summary of the tree to the relevant list, and, when the time is
+right, request that the tree be included in linux-next.
+
+If and when others start to send patches for inclusion into your tree,
+don't forget to review them.  Also ensure that you maintain the correct
+authorship information; the git "am" tool does its best in this regard, but
+you may have to add a "From:" line to the patch if it has been relayed to
+you via a third party.
+
+When requesting a pull, be sure to give all the relevant information: where
+your tree is, what branch to pull, and what changes will result from the
+pull.  The git request-pull command can be helpful in this regard; it will
+format the request as other developers expect, and will also check to be
+sure that you have remembered to push those changes to the public server.
+
+.. _development_advancedtopics_reviews:
+
+Reviewing patches
+-----------------
+
+Some readers will certainly object to putting this section with "advanced
+topics" on the grounds that even beginning kernel developers should be
+reviewing patches.  It is certainly true that there is no better way to
+learn how to program in the kernel environment than by looking at code
+posted by others.  In addition, reviewers are forever in short supply; by
+looking at code you can make a significant contribution to the process as a
+whole.
+
+Reviewing code can be an intimidating prospect, especially for a new kernel
+developer who may well feel nervous about questioning code - in public -
+which has been posted by those with more experience.  Even code written by
+the most experienced developers can be improved, though.  Perhaps the best
+piece of advice for reviewers (all reviewers) is this: phrase review
+comments as questions rather than criticisms.  Asking "how does the lock
+get released in this path?" will always work better than stating "the
+locking here is wrong."
+
+Another technique that is useful in case of a disagreement is to ask for others
+to chime in. If a discussion reaches a stalemate after a few exchanges,
+then call for opinions of other reviewers or maintainers. Often those in
+agreement with a reviewer remain silent unless called upon.
+The opinion of multiple people carries exponentially more weight.
+
+Different developers will review code from different points of view.  Some
+are mostly concerned with coding style and whether code lines have trailing
+white space.  Others will focus primarily on whether the change implemented
+by the patch as a whole is a good thing for the kernel or not.  Yet others
+will check for problematic locking, excessive stack usage, possible
+security issues, duplication of code found elsewhere, adequate
+documentation, adverse effects on performance, user-space ABI changes, etc.
+All types of review, if they lead to better code going into the kernel, are
+welcome and worthwhile.
+
+There is no strict requirement to use specific tags like ``Reviewed-by``.
+In fact reviews in plain English are more informative and encouraged
+even when a tag is provided, e.g. "I looked at aspects A, B and C of this
+submission and it looks good to me."
+Some form of a review message or reply is obviously necessary otherwise
+maintainers will not know that the reviewer has looked at the patch at all!
+
+Last but not least patch review may become a negative process, focused
+on pointing out problems. Please throw in a compliment once in a while,
+particularly for newbies!