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]

Message-Id: <20210812201559.31f5e520923d768049c8906d@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:15:59 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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 00:02:25 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> 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.

Agreed. It is meaningless to put eprobes on kprobes or uprobes.

Thank you,

> 
> -- Steve


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>