* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> 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
After that we can convert all the rest, probably as part of this series.
There's a good reason now to do it: it's not just about cleanliness, it
will also impact generated code less.
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
