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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

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]?

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

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/