lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and fixes crash bugs
(2013/12/05 19:21), Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> wrote:
>
>>> So we need both a maintainable and a sane/safe solution, and I'd
>>> like to apply the whole thing at once and be at ease that the
>>> solution is round. We should have done this years ago.
>>
>> 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.
>
> If the number of 'noprobe' annotations is expected to explode then
> maybe another approach should be considered.

No, since this is a "quantitative" issue, the annotation helps us.

> For example in perf we detect recursion. Could kprobes do that and
> detect hitting a probe while running kprobes code, and ignore it [do
> an early return]?

Yes, the kprobe itself already has recursion detector and it rejects
calling handler.

>
> That way most of the annotations could be removed and kprobes would
> become inherently safe. Is there any complication I'm missing?

That is actually what I'm doing with cleanup patches. :)


Thank you,

--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-06 04:01    [W:0.185 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site