[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131115091521.3ad917fe@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:15:21 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: perf/tracepoint: another fuzzer generated lockup
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:28:33 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:16:18AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Kprobes itself can detect nested call by using per-cpu current-running
> > kprobe pointer. And if it is nested, it just skips calling handlers.
> > Anyway, I don't recommend to probe inside the handlers, but yes,
> > you can trace perf-handler by ftrace B). I actually traced a kprobe-bug
> > by kprobe-tracer last night, that was amazing :)
>
> Ah, ok, so that would avoid the worst problems. Good. Should we still
> mark the entire perf swevent path as __kprobes just to be sure?
I wouldn't unless we can prove that it breaks. It's sometimes nice to
be able to debug the debugging facilities with the debugging
facilities ;-)
-- Steve
--
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