This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH -tip v9 20/26] kprobes: Support blacklist functions in module
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel dot org>
- To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami dot hiramatsu dot pt at hitachi dot com>
- Cc: linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp dot com dot au>, Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>, Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa dot prabhu at linaro dot org>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec at gmail dot com>, x86 at kernel dot org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis dot org>, fche at redhat dot com, mingo at redhat dot com, Rob Landley <rob at landley dot net>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, "David S. Miller" <davem at davemloft dot net>, systemtap at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:19:51 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v9 20/26] kprobes: Support blacklist functions in module
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140417081636 dot 26341 dot 87858 dot stgit at ltc230 dot yrl dot intra dot hitachi dot co dot jp> <20140417081856 dot 26341 dot 53535 dot stgit at ltc230 dot yrl dot intra dot hitachi dot co dot jp> <20140424085601 dot GA7768 at gmail dot com> <5358F458 dot 1030300 at hitachi dot com>
* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> wrote:
> (2014/04/24 17:56), Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> >> index f520a76..2fdb673 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/kobject.h>
> >> #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> >> #include <linux/jump_label.h>
> >> +#include <linux/kprobes.h>
> >
> > This include breaks the x86 build:
> >
> > CC arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.o
> > In file included from arch/x86/kernel/jump_label.c:14:0:
> > /fast/mingo/tip/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h:35:12: error: conflicting types for âkprobe_opcode_t' typedef u8 kprobe_opcode_t;
> > [...]
>
> Hmm, this error seems very odd... and I don't see
Needs 'make allnoconfig' or some similar .config combination.
> > But the #include kprobes.h is unnecessary to begin with, as no kprobe
> > specific types are used.
>
> OK, anyway I'll remove that.
>
> >
> >> #include <linux/export.h>
> >>
> >> #include <linux/percpu.h>
> >> @@ -357,6 +358,10 @@ struct module {
> >> unsigned int num_ftrace_callsites;
> >> unsigned long *ftrace_callsites;
> >> #endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
> >> + unsigned int num_kprobe_blacklist;
> >> + unsigned long *kprobe_blacklist;
> >> +#endif
> >
> > There's a small coding style problem here.
> >
> > More importantly, I think more should be done to make sure that module
> > symbols are marked properly: since the module is going to register the
> > kprobes handler, that would be a perfect place to emit a warning,
> > right?
> >
> > In fact, why don't kprobe handlers get added to the exclusion list
> > explicitly, when the handler gets registered? With such an approach
> > handlers are automatically nokprobe and don't need any annotation -
> > which is a far more robust usage model.
>
> Ah, I see. That is because there are some local functions called
> only from the kprobe handlers. It is easy to blacklist the kprobe
> handlers itself, but not for the functions which are only called
> from them. :(
>
> So, I can add a patch which automatically add handler functions to
> blacklist. But that is another story. I think this patch is also
> required.
Fair enough! I'd even argue to not do the auto-blacklisting I
suggested, to make it really apparent to module authors that
annotations are needed.
Thanks,
Ingo