[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B532508.4000806@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:56:08 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	ananth@...ibm.com, Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
	Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)
On 01/17/2010 04:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:39 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> On 01/15/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>      
>>> As previously stated, I think poking at a process's address space is an
>>> utter no-go.
>>>
>>>        
>> Why not reserve an address space range for this, somewhere near the top
>> of memory?  It doesn't have to be populated if it isn't used.
>>      
> Because I think poking at a process's address space like that is gross.
>    
If it's reserved, it's no longer the process' address space.
> Also, if its fixed size you're imposing artificial limits on the number
> of possible probes.
>    
Obviously we'll need a limit, a uprobe will also take kernel memory, we 
can't allow people to exhaust it.
-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
 
