[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150717121037.GA9437@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:10:37 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/master 1/3] kprobes: Support blacklist functions in
module
* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> To blacklist the functions in a module (e.g. user-defined
> kprobe handler and the functions invoked from it), expand
> blacklist support for modules.
> With this change, users can use NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() macro in
> their own modules.
Btw., whatever happened with renaming '__kprobes' to '__nokprobe' and using that
consistently to blacklist certain functions?
Also, shouldn't we convert such instances:
static int notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
unsigned long val, void *v,
int nr_to_call, int *nr_calls)
...
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(notifier_call_chain);
to:
static int __nokprobe notifier_call_chain(struct notifier_block **nl,
unsigned long val, void *v,
int nr_to_call, int *nr_calls)
?
I.e. instead of extending it to modules we should eliminate NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() in
favor of marking functions as __nokprobe which is the standard syntax for marking
functions.
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