(2013/11/11 20:16), Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Currently the blacklist is maintained by hand in kprobes.c >> which is separated from the function definition and is hard >> to catch up the kernel update. >> To solve this issue, I've tried to implement new >> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() macro for making kprobe blacklist at >> build time. Since the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() macros can be placed >> right after the function is defined, it is easy to maintain. >> At this moment, I applied the macro only for the symbols >> which is listed in kprobes.c. As we discussed in previous >> thread, if the gcc accepts to introduce new annotation to >> store the function address (and size) at somewhere, we can >> easily move onto that by replacing NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() with >> nokprobe annotation (and just modifying the >> populate_kprobe_blacklist() a bit). >> >> This series also includes a change which prohibits probing >> on the address in .entry.text because the code is used for >> very low-level sensitive interrupt/syscall entries. Probing >> such code may cause unexpected result (actually most of >> that area is already in the kprobe blacklist). >> So I've decide to prohibit probing all of them. >> >> Since Ingo wasn't convinced about the idea in the previous >> discussion, I just make this series as RFC series. >> I'd like to ask again with actual implementation and plan. >> >> Thank you, >> >> --- >> >> Masami Hiramatsu (2): >> kprobes: Prohibit probing on .entry.text code >> kprobes: Introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() macro for blacklist >> >> >> arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S | 33 ------------ >> arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 20 -------- >> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c | 4 ++ >> include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 9 +++ >> include/linux/kprobes.h | 19 +++++++ >> kernel/kprobes.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- >> kernel/sched/core.c | 1 >> 7 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-) > > Ok, I like it after all. > > Mind changing over arch/x86/kprobes/* to use this new facility? There's no > sense in kprobes internals using two types Sure, that's why I introduced this :) > After that we can convert all the rest, probably as part of this series. OK, I'll do. :) BTW, converting all the __kprobes involves many archs, which kprobes ported. In that case, which mailing-list would better me to post the series, linux-arch? > > There's a good reason now to do it: it's not just about cleanliness, it > will also impact generated code less. Thank you! -- Masami HIRAMATSU IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
