Re: trace: trace_kprobe.c always shows interrupts off
From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Wed Nov 18 2015 - 08:11:59 EST
----- On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:51 AM, masami hiramatsu pt masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Mathieu, Steven,
> From: Steven Rostedt [mailto:rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:35:35 +0000 (UTC)
>>Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I notice that trace_kprobe.c does local_save_flags() within
>>> __kprobe_trace_func(), which is called (at least on x86) with
>>> interrupts always disabled. This is then used as interrupt on/off
>>> state within the recorded event, which is misleading.
>>Kinda. The kprobe itself has interrupts disabled, so it's only a white
>>> I also don't understand why arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c
>>> pre handler disables interrupts, considering the following
>>> comment above arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c: kprobe_int3_handler()
>>> * Interrupts are disabled on entry as trap3 is an interrupt gate and they
>>> * remain disabled throughout this function.
>>I think you answered your own question. The key piece you may be
>>missing is that kprobe_ftrace_handler() is not called from a trap, but
>>from a function traced callback, which does not disable interrupts.
> right, since the user can not forcibly change any kprobes to
> jump, those handlers should be ran under the same environment.
>>> A struct pt_regs is received by this function, but I don't see
>>> any way to get the state of irq enable/disable from struct pt_regs
>>> across architectures.
>>> Any thoughts on how to fix this ?
>>Create a cross arch: flags = regs_irq_save(regs) function.
> Good idea! Anyway, we can start on x86, in other arch we can
> prepare a dummy function to return current interrupt state(as
> we are doing now).
Derived from Steven's idea, I added a lttng_regs_irqs_disabled(struct pt_regs *regs)
to lttng-modules. The generic version returns "-1", which means that the architecture
don't support it yet. It returns 1 or 0 when implemented.
I prefer this approach compared to fall-back to irqs_disabled(), because
users then know that they can trust the information when it is
Returning an unknown state with a regs_irq_save(regs) did not
seem obvious, because there is no guarantee that a value like
"-1" does not mean something specific on some architectures.
One possibility would be to make it return success/failure,
and populate the flags in an output parameter, but that seems
When regs_irq_save() becomes widely available across architectures
in newer kernels, I'll use it of course.
> Thank you,
> Masami Hiramatsu
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/