[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131205102127.GA19923@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:21:27 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>, 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
* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> > So we need both a maintainable and a sane/safe solution, and I'd
> > like to apply the whole thing at once and be at ease that the
> > solution is round. We should have done this years ago.
>
> For the safeness of kprobes, I have an idea; introduce a whitelist
> for dynamic events. AFAICS, the biggest unstable issue of kprobes
> comes from putting *many* probes on the functions called from
> tracers.
If the number of 'noprobe' annotations is expected to explode then
maybe another approach should be considered.
For example in perf we detect recursion. Could kprobes do that and
detect hitting a probe while running kprobes code, and ignore it [do
an early return]?
That way most of the annotations could be removed and kprobes would
become inherently safe. Is there any complication I'm missing?
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