linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

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: <20100120105155.GC5149@nowhere>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:51:57 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ananth@...ibm.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.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 Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:06:20PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> [2010-01-19 19:06:12]:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 09:47:45AM -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
> > > 
> > > What does the code in the jumped-to vma do?  Is the instrumentation code
> > > that corresponds to the uprobe handlers encoded in an ad hoc .so?
> > 
> > 
> > Once the instrumentation is requested by a process that is not the
> > instrumented one, this looks impossible to set a uprobe without a
> > minimal voluntary collaboration from the instrumented process
> > (events sent through IPC or whatever). So that looks too limited,
> > this is not anymore a true dynamic uprobe.
> 
> I dont see a case where the thread being debugged refuses to place a
> probe unless the process is exiting. The traced process doesnt decide
> if it wants to be probed or not. There could be a slight delay from the
> time the tracer requested to the time the probe is placed. But this
> delay in only affecting the tracer and the tracee. This is in contract
> to say stop_machine where the threads of other applications are also
> affected.


I did not think about a kind of trace point inserted in a shared memory.
I was just confused :)

--
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/