[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060919154612.GU3951@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:46:12 -0400
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
Hi -
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 08:11:40AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> [...] Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere
> else, and make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)? Then
> reroute all the function calls through it [...]
Interesting idea. Are you imagining this instrumented copy being
built at kernel compile time (something like building a "-g -O0"
parallel)? Or compiled anew from original sources after deployment?
Or on-the-fly binary-level rewriting a la SPIN?
> OK, it's not completely trivial to do, but simpler than kprobes [...]
None of the three above are that easy. Do you have an implementation
idea?
- FChE
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists