| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:17:53 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 2nddept-manager@....hitachi.co.jp Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 2.6.35-rc3-tip 0/11] Uprobes Patches: Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Hi Ingo, >> >> I have addressed all comments to the uprobes patchset. We have few todos >> (most of them are features over the current code) which I plan to work in >> the immediate future. >> >> So would it be possible for this patchset to be picked into the tip tree. >> Getting these patches merged into the tip tree would help in getting more >> comments/feedback and testing. > > If Masami-san, PeterZ and Arnaldo is happy with it being tried in its current > form then we could try it. At least ftrace/perf side, it's almost good for me. (but I need time to test it) > Assuming everyone is reasonably happy about the code, here are some open areas > as i see them, before we can think about pushing things from -tip towards > upstream: > > - One thing i havent seen is the ability to 'list' potential probe points: > i.e. function names. Often the user will not know precisely where to look > and what to type. This leaves our probe capability under-utilized in > practice. It will be the next step for perf-(u)probe, debuginfo support. Since the perf-(k)probe already support in which function the probe is put, I think if perf-(u)probe support debuginfo, it's easy to be implemented. > - On a similar note, it might also make sense to extend the Newt interface to > perf report to integrate probes: if a function looks high-overhead, then a > probe point could be inserted and the app could be traced straight away. We > already allow per function actions in the Newt interface, such as assembly > annotation - the adding of a probe point would be quite useful. Hmm, does that mean that user puts a new probe point from Newt interface? That's a good idea:) > - [ Optional: Another interesting area to look at would be the scripting > engine: allow trace scripts to insert probes if they are not present yet. ] Sure, that's what I hope. :) > - Plus the security model is an open question as well. Right now it's > root-only, but it would make sense to allow users to insert probes into > their own apps. This brings up the next point: Hmm, put a probe in user-space(by owner) may be good. But inside the kernel, there are more sensitive informations... > - Proper syscall integration and more unification with kprobes and with the > TRACE_EVENT() universe. As far as API design goes, > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/uprobe_events is quite sucky as a concept. Yeah, we can extend the interface and merge it. But removing all debugfs interfaces should be discussed. Thank you, > > Thanks, > > Ingo > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists