Re: [RFC] Tracepoint proposal

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Takashi Nishiie" <t-nishiie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> [...]
> Each kernel sub-system seems to have its own way of dealing with 
> debugging statements. Some of these methods include 'dprintk', 
> 'pr_debug', 'dev_debug', 'DEBUGP'. I think that these functions are
> the tracepoints that has been availably mounted without setting up 
> the tool set of the outside. I think whether mounting that unites 
> these functions can be done if kernel marker and tracepoint are used.

There are efforts underway to collect these various debug methods into
a single run-time-dynamic stream, which may even turn out to connect
to markers.

> By the way, isn't there problem on security?  What kprobe, jprobe,
> and kernel marker, etc. offer looks like what the framework of Linux
> Security Module had offered before.  Gotten kprobe, jprobe, and
> kernel marker, etc. should not be exported to the userland for
> security because it becomes the hotbed of rootkits.

These are all kernel-side facilities with no direct connection to
user-land.

> Users such as kprobe, jprobe, and kernel marker should not be
> Loadable Kernel Module. [...]

That would defeat their usefulness.  Remember, kernel modules run with
no hardware-level restrictions at all, so if an adversary managed to
load up some kernel malware module, the game is over, whether or not
they use kprobes.

- FChE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/