[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080130040712.GA6762@in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:37:13 +0530
From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@...il.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
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:29:41PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> 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.
The reason why kprobes needs to be the first to run is simple: it
doesn't need user intervention and if it isn't the intended recepient of
the breakpoint, it just lets the kernel take over (unlike a debugger,
which would potentially need user attention). Also, if the underlying
instruction itself is a breakpoint, we have the facility in kprobes to
single-step inline so the kernel can take control and notify any other
intended recepient of the underlying breakpoint.
As such, I believe the current situation is fine, has worked fine for
close to 4 years now and doesn't warrant any change.
Ananth
--
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