(2013/11/13 1:59), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:25:26 +0530 > Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.pra...@linaro.org> wrote: > > >>> >>> BTW, I'm currently trying a general housecleaning of __kprobes >>> annotations. It may also have impact on your patch. >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/8/187 >> Hmm, we can help testing your patchset on arm64 platforms. Also have >> many doubts on the changes you are working [blacklisting probes etc] >> >> Basically I had tried placing kprobe on memcpy() and the model hung >> (insmod never returned back!). Fast-model I have does not have option >> of any debug so no clue what happened!. >> memcpy() is low-level call being used internally within kprobes, so >> probably we cannot handle probe on that routine, but then how to make >> sure all such API are rejected by kprobe sub-system ? > > Working on ports of ftrace, I found that many of the functions in lib/ > are used by several locations that just can't be traced, due to how > low level they are. I just simply blacklisted the entire lib/ > directory (See the top of lib/Makefile) > > I wonder if there's an easy way to blacklist entire directories from > being used by kprobes too. Or at least do it by a file per file basis.
Hm, perhaps we can do some magic in post-build script as kallsyms does. 1) make an object file 2) extract symbols from the file 3) put the symbols into data section as a list of strings 4) analyze the list at boot (init) time by using kallsyms how about this? :) Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
