linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] systemtap: begin the process of using proper kernel APIs (part1: use kprobe symbol

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]

Message-Id: <1216386627.28405.42.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:10:27 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	systemtap@...rceware.org, jbeulich@...ell.com,
	arjan <arjan@...radead.org>, sandmann@...mi.au.dk,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] systemtap: begin the process of using proper kernel APIs
	(part1: use kprobe symbol_name/offset instead of address)

On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 09:02 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> 
> > [...]
> >> Right now x86 doesn't really have a good reliable unwinder that
> >> works without frame pointer. I think systemtap
> >> recently switched to Jan Beulich's dwarf2 unwinder. Before
> >> switching to the in kernel unwinder that one would need to be 
> >> re-merged again.
> >
> > Those are two separate issues.
> >
> > 1) stap ought to use the kernel's infrastructure and not re-implement
> > its own.
> > 2) if the kernel's infrastructure doesn't meet requirements, improve
> > it.
> 
> They are related to the extent that readers may not realize some
> implications of systemtap being/becoming a *kernel-resident* but not
> *kernel-focused* tool.
> 
> For example, we're about to do unwinding/stack-traces of userspace
> programs.  To what extent do you think the kernel unwinder (should one
> reappear in git) would welcome patches that provide zero benefit to
> the kernel, but only enable a peculiar (nonintrusive) sort of
> unwinding we would need for complex userspace stacks?

I think sysprof (kernel/trace/trace_sysprof.c) already does user-space
stack unwinding. So pushing that capability further up the chain when a
second user (stap) comes along makes perfect sense.



--
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/