[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160803210455.0473467d@grimm.local.home>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:04:55 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Aravinda Prasad <aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, daniel@...earbox.net,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
kernel@...p.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, ananth@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] tracefs: add instances support for uprobe
events
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 01:46:04 +0530
Aravinda Prasad <aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 August 2016 01:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 01:00:51 +0530
> > Aravinda Prasad <aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Can a container have its own function tracing?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I didn't understand that. Do you mean to have a separate
> >> per-container trace files?
> >
> > Actually, it's more my ignorance of containers, as I haven't had the
> > need to play with them. Although, I think it may be time to do so.
> >
> > When a container enters kernel mode, I'm assuming that it's part of the
> > host at that moment, and the host needs to take care of separating
> > everything? That is, there's not a "second kernel" like VMs have, right?
>
> Yes. The host needs to take care of separating everything. There is no
> "second kernel".
That's what I figured. Thus, my worry is that something like the
function tracer can cause information leak to a container. How would
you separate functions for the container from functions for the host?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists