> On Mar 3, 2021, at 10:11 AM, Daniel Xu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 06:18:23PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:46 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Mar 2, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 06:18:23PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:46 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:02 PM Andy Lutomirski
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
On 03/02, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> Especially if such tightening will come with performance boost for
> uprobe on a nop and unprobe at the start (which is typically push or
> alu on %sp).
> That would be a great step forward.
Just in case, nop and push are emulated without additional
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 5:46 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:02 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 2,
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:02 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>
On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Is there something like
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 1:02 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there something like a uprobe test suite? How maintained /
> >> actively used is uprobe?
> >
>
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Is there something like a uprobe test suite? How maintained /
>> actively used is uprobe?
>
> uprobe+bpf is heavily used in production.
> selftests/bpf has only one
> On Mar 2, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 03/01, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>> But I guess this has nothing to do with uprobes, they do not single-step
>>> in kernel mode, right?
>>
>> They single-step user
On 03/02, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> > Not sure I understand you correctly, I know almost nothing about low-level
> > x86 magic.
>
> x86 has normal interrupt and NMI. When an NMI occurs the CPU masks NMI
> (the mask itself is hidden status) and IRET releases the mask. The problem
> is that if an
forgot to add Srikar, sorry for resend...
On 03/01, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But I guess this has nothing to do with uprobes, they do not single-step
> > in kernel mode, right?
>
> They single-step user code, though, and the code that
On 03/01, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > But I guess this has nothing to do with uprobes, they do not single-step
> > in kernel mode, right?
>
> They single-step user code, though, and the code that makes this work
> is quite ugly.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 10:38 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Is there something like a uprobe test suite? How maintained /
> actively used is uprobe?
uprobe+bpf is heavily used in production.
selftests/bpf has only one test for it though.
Why are you asking?
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 6:22 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> Hi Oleg and Andy,
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 17:51:31 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > sorry for delay.
> >
> > On 02/23, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > > A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely
Hi Oleg and Andy,
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 17:51:31 +0100
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> sorry for delay.
>
> On 02/23, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely need to
> > single-step the kernel on occasion, and I decided that this sucked
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> sorry for delay.
>
> On 02/23, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely need to
> > single-step the kernel on occasion, and I decided that this sucked but
> > I could live
Hi Andy,
sorry for delay.
On 02/23, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely need to
> single-step the kernel on occasion, and I decided that this sucked but
> I could live with it. it would, however, be Really Really Nice (tm)
> if we could have
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:45:10AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I guess I see the point for CALL, JMP and RET, but it seems like we
> could emulate those cases instead fairly easily.
Today, yes. CALL emulation was 'recently' made possible by having #BP
have a stack gap. We have emulation for
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 22:03:12 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:22 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:45:10 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 5:18 PM Masami Hiramatsu
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 23 Feb
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:22 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:45:10 -0800
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 5:18 PM Masami Hiramatsu
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:24:19 -0800
> > > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >
> > > > A while back, I
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:45:10 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 5:18 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:24:19 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely need to
> > > single-step the
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 5:18 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:24:19 -0800
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely need to
> > single-step the kernel on occasion, and I decided that this sucked but
> > I could live with
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:24:19 -0800
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely need to
> single-step the kernel on occasion, and I decided that this sucked but
> I could live with it. it would, however, be Really Really Nice (tm)
> if we could have a
A while back, I let myself be convinced that kprobes genuinely need to
single-step the kernel on occasion, and I decided that this sucked but
I could live with it. it would, however, be Really Really Nice (tm)
if we could have a rule that anyone running x86 Linux who single-steps
the kernel (e.g.
23 matches
Mail list logo
