linux-kernel - [RFC]kprobes functionality with kernel-hacking disabled

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 19 Dec 2014 01:41:42 +0800
From:	He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
To:	<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
CC:	<ananth@...ibm.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>, <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
	<hekuang@...wei.com>
Subject: [RFC]kprobes functionality with kernel-hacking disabled

kprobes is so excellent in performance analysis. But in many practical 
performance analysis scenarios, performance & debuging related configs
maybe disabled. So, we should recompile the kernel for further analysis,
this is not so convinient.

I've read this thread asked a question to use kprobes as a module
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/15/46), and know the ftrace dependence
 issue. But when we meet a kernel compiled without CONFIG_KPROBES*, 
the only thing we need is the basic kprobes funtionality, have ftrace 
or not is not the major problem, in fact, most cases ftrace is disabled
too.

Do you have any advices on the conflicts between kernel hacking tools and 
practical kernel which compiled without it? If there is no kprobes 
module, what should we use?

Signed-off-by: He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>

-- 
1.7.9.5

--
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/