lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and fixes crash bugs
From
Date

Hi, Masami -

masami.hiramatsu.pt wrote:

> [...]
> For the safeness of kprobes, I have an idea; introduce a whitelist
> for dynamic events. AFAICS, the biggest unstable issue of kprobes
> comes from putting *many* probes on the functions called from tracers.

Why do you think so? We have had problems with single kprobes in the
"wrong" spot. The main reason I showed spraying them widely is to get
wide coverage with minimal information/effort, not to suggest that the
number of concurrent probes per se is a problem. (We have had
systemtap scripts probing some areas of the kernel with thousands of
active kprobes, e.g. for statement-by-statement variable-watching
jobs, and these have worked fine.)


> It doesn't crash the kernel but slows down so much, because every
> probes hit many other nested miss-hit probes.

(kprobes does have code to detect & handle reentrancy.)

> This gives us a big performance impact. [...]

Sure, but I'd expect to see pure slowdowns show their impact with
time-related problems like watchdogs firing or timeouts.


> [...] Then, I'd like to propose this new whitelist feature in
> kprobe-tracer (not raw kprobe itself). And a sysctl knob for
> disabling the whitelist. That knob will be
> /proc/sys/debug/kprobe-event-whitelist and disabling it will mark
> kernel tainted so that we can check it from bug reports.

How would one assemble a reliable whitelist, if we haven't fully
characterized the problems that make the blacklist necessary?


- FChE


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-05 17:01    [W:0.317 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site