Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 11:51:42 +1100 From: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc> To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>, "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <wilal.deacon@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Chris Fries <cfries@...gle.com>, Dave Weinstein <olorin@...gle.com>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] scripts/leaking_addresses: add reporting On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:42:21AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Wed 2017-11-08 14:37:36, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > Currently script just dumps all results found. Potentially, this risks > > loosing single results among multiple duplicate results. We need some > > way of restricting duplicates to assist users of the script. It would > > also be nice if we got a report instead of raw results. > > > > Duplicates can be defined in various ways, instead of trying to find a > > single perfect solution we can present the user with various options to > > display the output. Doing so will typically lead to users wanting to > > view the output multiple times. Currently we scan the kernel each time, > > this is slow and unnecessary. We can expedite the process by writing the > > results to file for subsequent viewing. > > > > Add sub-commands `scan` and `format`. Display output as a report instead > > of raw results. Add --raw flag to view raw results. Save results to > > file. For subsequent calls to `format` parse output file instead of > > re-scanning. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> > > --- > > scripts/leaking_addresses.pl | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 187 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl b/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl > > index 719ed0aaede7..4c31e935319b 100755 > > --- a/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl > > +++ b/scripts/leaking_addresses.pl > > @@ -21,14 +21,19 @@ use File::Spec; > > use Cwd 'abs_path'; > > use Term::ANSIColor qw(:constants); > > use Getopt::Long qw(:config no_auto_abbrev); > > +use File::Spec::Functions 'catfile'; > > > > my $P = $0; > > my $V = '0.01'; > > > > -# Directories to scan. > > +# Directories to scan (we scan `dmesg` also). > > my @DIRS = ('/proc', '/sys'); > > > > # Command line options. > > +my $output = "scan.out"; > > The hard-coded filename and its use is dangerous. Nobody expects that > this kind of script writes/re-writes a file on the system. Understood. > > +my $suppress_dmesg = 0; > > +my $squash_by_path = 0; > > +my $raw = 0; > > my $help = 0; > > my $debug = 0; > > > > @@ -70,21 +75,34 @@ sub help > > my ($exitcode) = @_; > > > > print << "EOM"; > > -Usage: $P [OPTIONS] > > + > > +Usage: $P COMMAND [OPTIONS] > > Version: $V > > > > +Commands: > > + > > + scan Scan the kernel (savesg raw results to file and runs `format`). > > + format Parse results file and format output. > > The later formatting/filtering might be useful but the use > of the hard coded file is strange. Also it is pity that > the script does not do anything useful out of box. > > I suggest to remove the commands and do the scan out of box. > It should not store anything on the disk by default. > > Then we could define following options: > > -o, --output=<file> Store raw results into file for later formatting. > -i, --input=<file> Read raw result from file and just format them. > > Well, it is still somehow non-intuitive. It might help to > be more explicit: > > -o, --output-raw=<file> > -i, --input-raw=<file> So, Usage: scripts/leaking_addresses.pl [OPTIONS] Options: -o, --output-raw=<file> Save results for future processing. -i, --input-raw=<file> Read results from file instead of scanning. --raw Show raw results (default). --suppress-dmesg Do not show dmesg results. --squash-by-path Show one result per unique path. --squash-by-filename Show one result per unique filename. -d, --debug Display debugging output. -h, --help, --version Display this help and exit. > > Options: > > > > - -d, --debug Display debugging output. > > - -h, --help, --version Display this help and exit. > > + -o, --output=<file> Raw results output file, used for later formatting. > > + --suppress-dmesg Do not show dmesg results. > > + --squash-by-path Show one result per unique path. > > I would personally add also option for the default mode: > > --squash-by-filename Show one result per unique filename > (default). > > In fact, I would personally use --squash-by-path or even --raw by > default. These provide easy to understand output. While the > --squash-by-filename mode has pretty good results but > it is quite non-intuitive. Thanks for you suggestions Petr. Summary reporting by default was suggested by Linus, but now the summary is implemented and has proven to be heuristic I tend to agree with you that raw by default is best. This gives users the information they need to select one of the summary types i.e if raw output has a bunch of lines from different paths but all filename FOO then --squash-by-filename may be used. Thanks for the tips, it's much nicer without the sub-commands. thanks, Tobin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.