On 12/12/2013 06:03 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> No, because the int3 already changes the original instruction. >> This means that you cannot skip singlestep(or emulate) the >> instruction which is copied to execution buffer (ainsn->insn), >> even if you have such the flag. >> So, kprobe requires the annotations on the singlestep path. > I don't understand this reasoning. > > Lets assume we allow a probe to be inserted in the single-step path. > Such a probe will be an INT3 instruction and if it hits we get a > recursive INT3 invocation. In that case the INT3 handler should simply > restore the original instruction and _leave it so_. There's no > single-stepping needed - the probe is confused and must be discarded.
So if you restore the original instruction, then you're essentially creating a dynamic blacklist for the singlestep path, right? I think that's fine, as long as you still allow recursive probes elsewhere to just singlestep and skip that occurrence. It also helps with the inlining issues, since an inlined function instance in the singlestep path can get dynamically blocked, while still allowing inline instances elsewhere to be probed normally. Then you don't have to force always/never inline decisions - whatever gcc decides to do with inlines and static functions can be dealt with. Josh -- 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/
