[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+b37P1msx3fSEe_UG=oR458fOoryv=Y_kv5Hg+HzofzgT8KZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:16:09 +0530
From: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
x86@...nel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
systemtap@...rceware.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and
fixes crash bugs
On 4 December 2013 13:09, Masami Hiramatsu
<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> (2013/12/04 11:54), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 4 December 2013 06:58, Masami Hiramatsu
>> <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Here is the version 4 of NOKPORBE_SYMBOL series.
>>>
>>> In this version, I removed the cleanup patches and
>>> add bugfixes I've found, since those bugs will be
>>> critical.
>>> Rest of the cleanup and visible blacklists will be
>>> proposed later in another series.
>>>
>>> Oh, just one new thing, I added a new RFC patch which
>>> removes the dependency of notify_die() from kprobes
>>> miss-hit/recovery path. Since the notify_die() involves
>>> locking and lockdep code which invokes a lot of heavy
>>> printk functions etc. This helped me to minimize the
>>> blacklist and provides more stability for kprobes.
>>> Actually, most of int3 handlers are already called
>>> from do_int3 directly, I think this change is acceptable
>>> too.
>>>
>>> Here is the updates about NOKPROBE_SYMBOL().
>>> - Now _ASM_NOKPROBE() macro is introduced for assembly
>>> symbols on x86.
>>> - Rename kprobe_blackpoint to kprobe_blacklist_entry
>>> and simplify it. Also NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() macro just
>>> saves the address of non-probe-able symbols.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Masami Hiramatsu (6):
>>
>>> kprobes: Prohibit probing on .entry.text code
>>> kprobes: Introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() macro for blacklist
>> Hi Masami,
>> Is it good idea to split "arch/x86" code from generic kernel changes?
>> Then we just need to take above two patches for verifying it on arm64
>> or other platforms.
>
> Yeah, it can be.
> However I think you can apply it without any problem on arm64 tree too,
> since it "just adds" an asm macro in arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h.
> It should not have any effect for other arch. Could you try it? :)
Hmm, for the second patch, git am failed with: "error: patch failed:
kernel/sched/core.c:2662",
manually patched to resolve it. aarch64 tree is right now at Linux 3.13-rc2.
Anyways, no conflicts for x86 arch files.
Thanks,
Sandeepa
> Thank you,
>
>
> --
> Masami HIRAMATSU
> IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
> Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
> E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists