On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 13:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> ----- On Mar 16, 2018, at 12:48 PM, rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:41:34 -0400 > > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > >> Yes, kprobes are dangerous. I'm not saying it shouldn't be fixed, I'm > >> saying that I don't have time to fix it now, but would be happy to > >> accept patches if someone else does so. > > > > And looking at what I replied before for the original patch. It would > > probably be a good idea to blacklist directories. Like we do with > > function tracing. We probably should black list both kernel/tracing and > > kernel/events from being probed. > > > > Did this come up at plumbers? You were there too, I don't remember > > discussing it there. > > I don't remember this coming up last Plumbers nor KS neither, given > that we were focused on other topics. > > Would the general approach you envision be based on emitting all code > generated by compilation of all objects under kernel/tracing and > kernel/events into a specific "nokprobes" text section of the kernel ? > Perhaps we could create a specific linker scripts for those directories, > or do you have in mind a neater way to do this ? .kprobes.text section still exists. As I pointed in previous mail, I don't think we have to put all those code into that section. But if you want, it is acceptable to have a kconfig which push most of those ftrace related code into .kprobes.text section. Thank, > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > > -- Steve > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org>
