* Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon 2015-03-23 09:54:26, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > arm_kprobe_ftrace() could fail, especially after introducing ftrace
> > > IPMODIFY flag and LifePatching. But this situation is not properly
> > > handled.
> >
> > s/LifePatching/LivePatching?
>
> Great catch! This is well hidden typo. Please, find the fixed version
> below.
>
>
> > Why not fix live patching to still allow kprobes that worked before?
>
> Yup, Kretprobes would work out of box. Masami is working on removing
> the conflict there.
>
> Jprobes are doable but the solution would be rather complicated.
> LivePatching would need to tell Jprobe the right address where to
> continue (according to the universe). We currently solve this by
wth is a 'universe' in this context?
> the conflict. I am not sure if a better solution is worth the effort.
> IMHO, LivePatch users won't want to have Kprobes on a production
> system all the time. They could use Kprobe or attach Jprobe to the
> new version of the function when needed.
So please outline the current usage limitations, why those limitations
are in place and how you see they should be fixed/addressed.
> Below is the patch with the fixed typo.
So the typo is totally immaterial compared to the above fundamental
patch-coordination problems between live patching, ftrace and kprobes
...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
