Re: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() andfixes crash bugs

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2013/12/06 15:54), Sandeepa Prabhu wrote:
>>> I am not sure if this question is related, uprobes or ftrace code does
>>> not  define __kprobes, so is it safe to place kprobe on uprobes or
>>> ftrace code?
>>
>> Yes, it is "safe" in qualitative meaning. But for ftrace code, it could
>> give a performance impact by miss-hitting. Since uprobe is independent
>> from kprobe, it should work.
>>
>>> Is it expected from arch code to support such cases?
>>
>> Yes, the arch dependent implementation is the key. If it shares some
>> code which can be called from miss-hit path, it should be blacklisted.
> well, isn't the blacklist only for those routines that can not be
> handled or may crash kernel, like the code sections called from
> exception kprobes exception handlers etc?

Yes, that's why the blacklist is needed.

> suppose if the probe on routine can miss-hit (probes re-cursing) but
> can be handled, it's only a quantitative issue (i.e. performance
> impact) so it should be *user's* problem right? I mean, as you said
> earlier about having white-list or a performance gatekeeper
> (systemtap), one can avoid such cases by white list or removing
> miss-hit probes dynamically.  But a blacklisting a symbol means
> placing a probe on that *can not be handled* and can crash the system,
> is it correct?

Yes, exactly that is what I meant. :)
The blacklist is only for avoiding such fundamental issue, therefore,
it strongly depends on the architecture code.

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


--
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/