On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:27:22AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:24:47 -0700 > "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > kprobe makes use of two sections, the one dealing with the actual > > kprobes was recently ported using the standard section range API. > > The blacklist functionality of kprobes is still using a custom > > section and declaring its custom section using the linker script > > as follows: > > > > type Linux-section custom section name begin end > > table .init.data _kprobe_blacklist __start_kprobe_blacklist __stop_kprobe_blacklist > > > > This ports the _kprobe_blacklist custom section to the standard > > Linux linker table API allowing us remove all the custom blacklist > > kprobe section declarations from the linker script. > > > > This has been tested by trying to register a kprobe on a blacklisted > > symbol (these are declared with NOKPROBE_SYMBOL()), and confirms that > > this fails to work as expected. This was tested with: > > This is OK for me, and if you would like to make sure, please use ftrace to probe > (easier than making new module) and compare debugfs/blacklist which shows > all blacklisted functions, so if all the function names are same it > must be OK :). Ah I see, sure thanks for the tip! I was actually hoping to write a unit test that automates this testing, but that can be done and submitted later, the approach you suggest should make writing a unit easier as well. > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> Great, thanks, Luis -- 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
