linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf probe: Allow user to specify address within executable

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:22:08 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:	acme@...stprotocols.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, namhyung@...nel.org,
	"yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf probe: Allow user to specify address within
 executable

(2013/12/04 0:58), David Ahern wrote:
> On 12/3/13, 2:24 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> I don't want to make perf-probe just a wrapper of the ftrace dynamic
>> event interface, because it doesn't add any "value" for users.
> 
> Sure it does -- a consistent user experience in using a single command
> (perf probe ...) for setting up userspace probes.
> 
> Specifying the address directly is really on par with perf-record having
> the rNNN interface for directly passing the raw event id to the kernel.

No, since the perf interface is not directly exposed to users
the perftools need to provide such raw interface. But the dynamic
event has it on debugfs.

>>>>> In that case, you should use uprobe_events interface directly.
>>>>
>>>> How do I do that within the context of perf?
>>
>> No way, but here, you can save this script as perf-uprobe and
>> can use it for that purpose. :)
> 
> I figured out what you meant by uprobe_events interface yesterday. If I
> have to go to that interface for even 1 function I would do it for all
> -- from a user perspective it is just simpler to have 1 command to setup
> probes. I would prefer that 1 command be perf-probe.

Yeah, but in that case, why you don't ask us adding sym->binding == STB_LOCAL
in filter_available_functions? :)

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/