linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 0/20] 0: Inode based uprobes

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1103151158220.2787@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:02:45 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	int-list-linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-mm@...ck.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>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 0/20] 0: Inode based uprobes

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > TODO: Documentation/trace/uprobetrace.txt
> > 
> > without a reasonable documentation how to use that is a brilliant
> > argument?
> 
> We had a fairly decent documentation for uprobes and
> uprobetracer. But that had to be changed with  the change in
> underlying design of uprobes infrastructure. Since uprobetrace is one
> the user interface, I plan to document it soon. However it would be
> great if we had inputs on how we should be designing the syscall.

Ok.
 
> > 	Or some sensible implementation ?
> 
> Would syscall based perf probe implementation count as a sensible
> implementation? My current plan was to code up the perf probe for

Yes.

> uprobes and then draft a proposal for how the syscall should look. 
> There are still some areas on how we should be allowing the
> filter, and what restrictions we should place on the syscall
> defined handler. I would like to hear from you and others on your
> ideas for the same. If you have ideas on doing it other than using a
> syscall then please do let me know about the same.

I don't think that anything else than a proper syscall interface is
going to work out.

> I know that getting the user interface right is very important.
> However I think it kind of depends on what the infrastructure can
> provide too. So if we can decide on the kernel ABI and the
> underlying design (i.e can we use replace_page() based background page
> replacement, Are there issues with the Xol slot based mechanism that
> we are using, etc), we can work towards providing a stable User ABI that
> even normal users can use. For now I am concentrating on getting the
> underlying infrastructure correct.

Fair enough. I'll go through the existing patchset and comment there.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/