[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200902094820.GA1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:48:20 +0200
From: peterz@...radead.org
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
bristot@...hat.com, jbaron@...mai.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org, namit@...are.com, hpa@...or.com, luto@...nel.org,
ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/18] static_call: Avoid kprobes on inline
static_call()s
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:35:08AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:57:43 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > Similar to how we disallow kprobes on any other dynamic text
> > (ftrace/jump_label) also disallow kprobes on inline static_call()s.
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
>
> BTW, here we already have 5 subsystems which reserves texts
> (ftrace, alternatives, jump_label, static_call and kprobes.)
>
> Except for the kprobes and ftrace, we can generalize the reserved-text
> code because those are section-based static address-areas (or lists).
Doesn't ftrace also have a section where it lists all the mcount
locations?
On top of that ftrace probably registers its trampolines.
Do we support adding kprobes to BPF-JIT'ed code or should we blacklist
them too?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists