Re: [PATCH -tip v8 10/26] kprobes/x86: Allow probe on some kprobe preparation functions

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2014/03/25 4:35), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:59:53 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> There is no need to prohibit probing on the functions
>> used in preparation phase. Those are safely probed because
>> those are not invoked from breakpoint/fault/debug handlers,
>> there is no chance to cause recursive exceptions.
>>
>> Following functions are now removed from the kprobes blacklist.
>>  can_boost
>>  can_probe
>>  can_optimize
>>  is_IF_modifier
>>  __copy_instruction
>>  copy_optimized_instructions
>>  arch_copy_kprobe
>>  arch_prepare_kprobe
>>  arch_arm_kprobe
>>  arch_disarm_kprobe
>>  arch_remove_kprobe
> 
> Is there any possibility that the arm and disarm could cause issues if
> we have a probe in the middle of setting it?

No problem at least on x86, since we need to take a text_mutex for
arm/disarm, those must not be called from int3/debug interrupts.

> I guess not, but I just wanted to ask, as your test only tested the
> start of function and not the middle of it.

No I've not tested yet. OK, I'll test it and report.

Thank you,

> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 
>>  arch_trampoline_kprobe
>>  arch_prepare_kprobe_ftrace
>>  arch_prepare_optimized_kprobe
>>  arch_check_optimized_kprobe
>>  arch_within_optimized_kprobe
>>  __arch_remove_optimized_kprobe
>>  arch_remove_optimized_kprobe
>>  arch_optimize_kprobes
>>  arch_unoptimize_kprobe
>>
> 
> 


-- 
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/