linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv11 2.6.36-rc2-tip 5/15] 5: uprobes: Uprobes (un)registration and exception handling.

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: <20100907164740.GA17491@Krystal>
Date:	Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:47:40 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Naren A Devaiah <naren.devaiah@...ibm.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv11 2.6.36-rc2-tip 5/15]  5: uprobes: Uprobes
	(un)registration and exception handling.

* Srikar Dronamraju (srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:16:42PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
 [...]
> > 
> > Which btw, brings up two more issues, one in uprobes and one in perf.
> > For one even in userspace I think the dynamic probes will really just
> > be the tip of the iceberg and we'll get more bang for the buck from
> > static traces, which is something that's no supported in uprobes yet.
> > As a start supporting the dtrace-style sdt.h header would be a great
> > help, and then we can decide if we need somthing even better on top.
> 
> Yes, Static tracing using dtrace style sdt.h is a cool thing to do.
> Already SystemTap has this facility. However I think its probably
> better done at perf user interface level.

We currently have this feature in UST. We're adding "markers" into the
applications, and a UST daemon talks with an in-process library helper thread to
enable/disable markers and control tracing over unix sockets.

We're currently in the process of moving from markers to the
TRACE_EVENT()+tracepoints infrastructure.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> 
> The way I look at it is perf probe decodes the static markers and asks
> uprobes to place probepoints over there.
> Do you see a different approach? If yes can you tell what you were
> looking at?

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.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/