[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131106060737.GC24044@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:07:37 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
x86@...nel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v2 3/3] [BUGFIX] kprobes: Prohibit probing on
func_ptr_is_kernel_text
* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> >> [...] I hope to build the list when the kernel build time if
> >> possible... Would you have any idea to classify some annotated(but no
> >> side-effect) functions?
> >
> > The macro magic I can think of would need to change the syntax of the
> > function definition - for example that is how the SYSCALL_DEFINE*()
> > macros work.
>
> Would you mean something like the below macro? :)
>
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(int, func_ptr_is_kernel_text)(void *ptr)
I think this is rather ugly and harder to maintain. The whole _point_ of
such annotations is to make them 'easy on the eyes', to make it easy to
skip a 'noinline', 'noprobe' or 'notrace' tag.
Using something like NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() makes the whole construct ugly and
attention seeking.
So until compilers get smarter (or there's some compiler trick I haven't
noticed) lets stay with the separate section - it's not the end of the
world, the (effective) 'noinline' aspect of noprobes changes code
generation anyway.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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