[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180310082444.uiy7fdqlxh6qbuwp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:24:44 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Yang Bo <yangbo@...pin.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/9] kprobes: Cleanup jprobe implementation
* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since we decided to remove jprobe from kernel last year,
> its APIs are disabled and we worked on moving in-kernel
> jprobe users to kprobes or trace-events. And now no jprobe
> users are here anymore.
>
> I think it is good time to get rid of jprobe implementation
> from the kernel. However, I need other arch developers help
> to complete it, since jprobe is implemented multi arch wide.
> I can remove those code, but can not test all of those.
>
> Here is the series of patches to show how to do that.
> I tried to remove it from x86 tree. Basically we need to
> do 3 things;
>
> - Remove jprobe functions (register/unregister,
> setjump/longjump) from generic/arch-dependent code.
> [1/9][2/9][3/9]
> - Remove break_handler related code.
> [4/9][5/9][6/9]
> - Do not disable preemption on exception handler
> [7/9][8/9][9/9]
>
> The [3/9] and [6/9] are destractive changes except for x86
> (means causes build errors) since those arch still have some
> references of those functions. So we need to write patches
> similar to [2/9] and [5/9] for each arch before applying those.
> In this series I sorted it as this order just for review,
> [3/9] and [6/9] should be applied after all archs have
> been fixed.
>
> Also, [7/9] is a kind of destractive, which changes required
> behavior for the pre_handlers which changes regs->ip.
> So we also need a patch similar to [7/9] for each arch too.
> Fortunately, current in-tree such user is very limited, both
> works only on x86. So it is not hurry, but we need to change
> arch dependent code.
>
> Thank you,
>
> ---
>
> Masami Hiramatsu (9):
> kprobes: Remove jprobe API implementation
> x86: kprobes: Remove jprobe implementation
> kprobes: Remove jprobe data structure and interfaces
> kprobes: Ignore break_handler
> x86: kprobes: Ignore break_handler
> kprobes: Remove break_handler from struct kprobe
> x86: kprobes: Do not disable preempt on int3 path
> error-injection: Fix to not enabling preemption in pre_handler
> tracing: kprobes: Fix to not enabling preemption
>
>
> Documentation/kprobes.txt | 13 ++--
> arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h | 3 -
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/common.h | 10 ---
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c | 114 ++------------------------------------
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c | 21 +------
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/opt.c | 1
> include/linux/kprobes.h | 54 ------------------
> kernel/fail_function.c | 1
> kernel/kprobes.c | 115 ++------------------------------------
> kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c | 3 -
> 10 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 315 deletions(-)
Nice work, and I love the diffstat, but please do a series that works (builds and
boots and has working kprobes) at every interim step.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists