Re: [PATCH v3 2.6.39-rc1-tip 7/26] 7: x86: analyze instructionand determine fixups.

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:03 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:

> +
> +static void report_bad_prefix(void)
> +{
> +	printk(KERN_ERR "uprobes does not currently support probing "
> +		"instructions with any of the following prefixes: "
> +		"cs:, ds:, es:, ss:, lock:\n");
> +}
> +
> +static void report_bad_1byte_opcode(int mode, uprobe_opcode_t op)
> +{
> +	printk(KERN_ERR "In %d-bit apps, "
> +		"uprobes does not currently support probing "
> +		"instructions whose first byte is 0x%2.2x\n", mode, op);
> +}
> +
> +static void report_bad_2byte_opcode(uprobe_opcode_t op)
> +{
> +	printk(KERN_ERR "uprobes does not currently support probing "
> +		"instructions with the 2-byte opcode 0x0f 0x%2.2x\n", op);
> +}

Should these really be KERN_ERR, or is KERN_WARNING a better fit?

Also, can a non-privileged user cause these printks to spam the console
and cause a DoS to the system?

-- Steve


--
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/