* Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 14:15:49 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > * Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > Also, 'function_offset_within_entry' is way too long a name, and it's
> > > > also a
> > > > minomer I think. The purpose of this function is to enforce that the
> > > > relative
> > > > 'offset' of a new probe is at the standard function entry offset: i.e.
> > > > 0 on most
> > > > architectures, and some ABI dependent constant on PowerPC, right?
> > > >
> > > > That's not at all clear from that name, plus it's a global namespace
> > > > symbol, yet
> > > > has no 'kprobes' prefix. So it should be named something like
> > > > 'kprobe_offset_valid()' or such, with an arch_kprobe_offset_valid()
> > > > counterpart.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I would rather like kprobe_within_entry(), since offset != 0 is
> > > actually valid for normal kprobe, that is kretprobe and jprobe limitation.
> >
> > But what entry? That it's within a range or that offset is always 0 is
> > really an
> > implementational detail: depending on what type of kprobe it is, it is
> > either
> > validly within the confines of the specified function symbol or not.
>
> Hmm, right. In most cases, it just checks the address (symbol+offset) is
> on the function entry.
>
> > What _really_ matters to callers is whether it's a valid kprobe to be
> > inserted
> > into that function, right?
>
> No, for that purpose, kprobes checks it in other places (kprobe_addr() and
> check_kprobe_address_safe()). This function is an additional safety check
> only for kretprobe and jprobe which must be placed on the function entry.
> (kprobe can probe function body but kretprobe and jprobes are not)
>
> > I.e. the long name came from over-specifying what is done by the function -
> > while
> > simplifying makes it actually more meaningful to read.
>
> I see, but kprobe_offset_valid is too simple. How about
> kprobe_on_func_entry()?
Ok, kprobe_on_func_entry() works for me.
Thanks,
Ingo
