On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:00:41 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Wasting extra 8bytes * number_of_tracepoints just for lack of trust > > in kallsyms doesn't sound like good trade off to me. > > If kallsyms are inaccurate all sorts of things will break: > > kprobes, livepatch, etc. And if kallsyms breaks, these will break by failing to attach, or some other benign error. Ftrace uses kallsyms to find functions too, but it only enables functions based on the result, it doesn't use the result for anything but to compare it to what it already knows. This is a first that I know of to trust that kallsyms returns something that you expect to execute with no other validation. It may be valid, but it also makes me very nervous too. If others are fine with such an approach, then OK, we can enter a new chapter of development where we can use kallsyms to find the functions we want to call and use it. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
