* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-04-19 09:29:11]:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:03 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > +
> > +static void report_bad_prefix(void)
> > +{
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "uprobes does not currently support probing "
> > + "instructions with any of the following prefixes: "
> > + "cs:, ds:, es:, ss:, lock:\n");
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void report_bad_1byte_opcode(int mode, uprobe_opcode_t op)
> > +{
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "In %d-bit apps, "
> > + "uprobes does not currently support probing "
> > + "instructions whose first byte is 0x%2.2x\n", mode, op);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void report_bad_2byte_opcode(uprobe_opcode_t op)
> > +{
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "uprobes does not currently support probing "
> > + "instructions with the 2-byte opcode 0x0f 0x%2.2x\n", op);
> > +}
>
> Should these really be KERN_ERR, or is KERN_WARNING a better fit?
>
> Also, can a non-privileged user cause these printks to spam the console
> and cause a DoS to the system?
>
Sometimes, the user might try registering a probe at a valid file +
valid offset + valid consumer; but an instruction that we cant probe.
Then trying to figure why its failing would be very hard.
how about pr_warn_ratelimited()?
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>