[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171004230804.9427341c928923a196c2a2b5@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 23:08:04 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX PATCH] kprobes/x86: Remove IRQ disabling from jprobe
handlers
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 12:41:01 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, actually we can not disable jprobe, that has no separate Kconfig.
> > So we need to introduce new kconfig for that.
> >
> > And, there are several network protocols using jprobe to trace events.
> > (e.g. NET_DCCPPROBE and NET_TCPPROBE)
> > I think they need to migrate to trace-event at first.
> >
> > So, how about below idea?
> >
> > 1. Introduce CONFIG_JPROBE_API which only separate jprobe general parts
> > (no arch dependent code involves) and make it default n.
> > 2. Mark break_handler and jprobe APIs deprecated so that no new user comes up.
> > 3. migrate in-kernel jprobe user to trace-event or ftrace.
> > (may take some time)
>
> So my suggestion would be to just return from register_jprobe() and don't register
> anything.
with CONFIG_JPROBE_API=n, is that right?
> Yes, there are usecases of jprobes in the kernel, but they all look
> pretty ancient and unused.
Hmm, in that case, should we also remove those users? If we disable such way
those features are just useless.
>
> So let's try this for -next and see whether anyone has a real usecase. And no
> Kconfig and deprecation messages - those don't really work in practice - just
> disable the functionality and force people to (trivially) modify the source if
> they want to re-enable it.
So you mean I don't have to change those usecases, just let them do.
>
> If this is fine for a single release then we can just remove it all:
>
> > 4. after that, we can completely remove jprobe which will be a series for
> > all archs. (or just one big patch?)
>
> we want a series of patches - but that's for later.
OK :)
Thank you,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists