[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150706090323.GB30342@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 10:03:24 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"wcohen@...hat.com" <wcohen@...hat.com>,
"dave.long@...aro.org" <dave.long@...aro.org>,
"steve.capper@...aro.org" <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
"masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com" <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Blacklist non-kprobe-able symbols
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 06:03:21AM +0100, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> Add all function symbols which are called from do_debug_exception under
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL, as they can not kprobed.
It's a shame this has to be so manual, but I suppose it's done on a
best-effort basis to catch broken probe placement.
If we miss a function and somebody probes it, do we just get stuck in a
recursive exception, or could we print something suggesting that a symbol
be annotated as NOKPROBE?
Will
--
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