linux-kernel - Re: [kprobes/x86] a19b2e3d78: WARNING:at_kernel/locking/lockdep.c:#trace_hardirqs_off

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:   Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:26:28 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        kernel test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, tipbuild@...or.com,
        LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [kprobes/x86] a19b2e3d78:
 WARNING:at_kernel/locking/lockdep.c:#trace_hardirqs_off_caller

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:19:10 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm considering to remove disabling-irq itself from jprobe.
> > (Frankly to say, I would like to remove jprobe itself...)
> 
> Please please please...
> 
> That would be lovely. The jprobe thing is really nasty, and despite
> the thing having been around forever (looking at history, it does back
> to 2004) there are very few users and they all look dubious to me.
> 
> I seriously doubt anybody uses them, and I suspect our current tracing
> infrastructure is just *so* much better and more powerful than jprobes
> was.

I completely agree. Moreover, jprobe can not handle the functions
which is optimized and modified function type by compiler nowadays.

> So I'd heartily recommend just getting rid of jprobes. Or at least
> trying, and seeing if anybody actually even notices (and then
> reverting the removal and looking at what the usage ends up actually
> being).

OK, should I just make a series to remove jprobes and its few users,
or mark APIs obsolete and remove it after next version?

Thank you,

> 
>                             Linus


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>