On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:04:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Does that make more sense? > > > > It appears to me you're going about it backwards. > > So how about you do a GCC plugin that verifies limits on code-gen > between user_access_begin/user_access_end() ? > > - No CALL/RET > - implies user_access_end() happens > - implies no fentry hooks > - No __preempt_count frobbing > - No tracepoints > - ... > > That way you put the burden on the special code, not on the rest of the > kernel.
And then you have kprobes ....
