On 03/17, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 19:28 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > syscall_regfunc() ignores the kernel thread because "it has > > no effect", see cc3b13c1 "Don't trace kernel thread syscalls". > > > > However, this means that a user-space task spawned by > > call_usermodehelper() won't report the system calls if > > kernel_execve() is called when sys_tracepoint_refcount != 0. > > > > Remove this check. Hopefully the unnecessary report from > > ret_from_fork path mentioned by cc3b13c1 is fine. In fact > > "this is the only case" is not true. Say, kernel_execve() > > itself does "int 80" on X86_32. Hopefully fine too. > > I'm really thinking the TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT flag is getting a bit > ridiculous. We really should have a "swap syscall table when tracepoints > enabled" that changes the syscall table that does exactly the same thing > as the normal table but wraps the system call with the tracepoints. But we also need to force the slow path in system_call... Anyway, do you agree with this change for now? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
