[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET 00/13] tracing/uprobes: Add support for more fetch methods (v6)
On 11/05, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> This is what I have for now:
> static void __user *get_user_vaddr(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr,
> struct trace_uprobe *tu)
> {
> unsigned long base_addr;
> unsigned long vaddr;
> base_addr = instruction_pointer(regs) - tu->offset;
> vaddr = base_addr + addr;
> return (void __force __user *) vaddr;
> }
> When I tested it, it was able to fetch global and bss data from both of
> executable and library properly.

Heh ;) I didn't expect you will agree with this suggestion. But if you
think it can work - great!

Let me clarify just in case. Yes, _personally_ I think we should try
to avoid the vma games, and it looks better to me this way. But I won't
argue if you change your mind, I understand this approach has its own

As for "-= tu->offset"... Can't we avoid it? User-space needs to calculate
the "@" argument anyway, why it can't also substruct this offset?

Or perhaps we can change parse_probe_arg("@") to update "param" ? Yes,
in this case it needs another argument, not sure...

> But it still doesn't work for uretprobes
> as you said before.

This looks simple,

+ if (is_ret_probe(tu)) {
+ saved_ip = instruction_pointer(regs);
+ instruction_pointer_set(func);
+ }
+ if (is_ret_probe(tu))
+ instruction_pointer_set(saved_ip);

although not pretty.

> This symbol offset calculation was done in the getsymoff which implemented
> like below (I'm sure there's a much simpler way to do this, but ...).

Perhaps I'll even try to read/understand it later, but this elf stuff is
the black magic to me ;)


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-05 19:01    [W:0.152 / U:4.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site