[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <479F7EA5.5040201@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:29:41 -0500
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@...il.com>
CC: ananth@...ibm.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
jkenisto@...ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] x86: Catch stray non-kprobe breakpoints
Abhishek Sagar wrote:
> On 1/29/08, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> wrote:
>> In that case, why don't you just reduce the priority of kprobe_exceptions_nb?
>> Then, the execution path becomes very simple.
>
> Ananth mentioned that the kprobe notifier has to be the first to run.
(Hmm.. I think he has just explained current implementation:))
IMHO, since kprobes itself can not know what the external debugger
wants to do, the highest priority should be reserved for those external tools.
> It still wouldnt allow us to notice breakpoints on places like do_int3
> etc.
If you'd like to do that, my recommendation is to modify IDT directly.
>> I also like to use a debugger for debugging kprobes. that will help us.
>
> Hmm...It would increase the code-path leading upto kprobe_handler.
> That's more territory to be guarded from kprobes.
Sure, all functions of the debugger should be marked __kprobes.
Thus it will be guarded from kprobes.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists