[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190213071316.GA121801@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:13:16 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v3 05/10] kprobes: Search non-suffixed symbol in
blacklist
* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> Newer gcc can generate some different instances of a function
> with suffixed symbols if the function is optimized and only
> has a part of that. (e.g. .constprop, .part etc.)
>
> In this case, it is not enough to check the entry of kprobe
> blacklist because it only records non-suffixed symbol address.
>
> To fix this issue, search non-suffixed symbol in blacklist if
> given address is within a symbol which has a suffix.
>
> Note that this can cause false positive cases if a kprobe-safe
> function is optimized to suffixed instance and has same name
> symbol which is blacklisted.
> But I would like to chose a fail-safe design for this issue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Why did you not add Steven's Reviewed-by tag?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists