linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] [RFC] trace: Add kprobe on tracepoint

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:02:25 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Tzvetomir Stoyanov (VMware)" <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>,
        linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] [RFC] trace: Add kprobe on tracepoint

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:27:35 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:

> I like to prohibit latter one. It is my feeling, but I think it is
> natural that the eprobe is only for the static events, and I also think
> dereferencing a pointer-type field in raw-event is more reliable than
> dereferencing a digit value passed to the synthetic event.

Although I believe we need to attach eprobes to synthetic events, for
the reasons I stated in my previous email. I'm perfectly happy to
forbid them from attaching to kprobe or uprobe events. Because,
honestly, eprobes do not give you anything that a kprobe nor uprobe can
give you.

-- Steve