This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and fixes crash bugs
- From: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa dot prabhu at linaro dot org>
- To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami dot hiramatsu dot pt at hitachi dot com>
- Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel dot org>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>, x86 at kernel dot org, lkml <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt at goodmis dot org>, systemtap at sourceware dot org, "David S. Miller" <davem at davemloft dot net>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:38:04 +0530
- Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and fixes crash bugs
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131204012841 dot 22118 dot 82992 dot stgit at kbuild-fedora dot novalocal> <20131204084551 dot GA31772 at gmail dot com> <529FBA71 dot 6070107 at hitachi dot com>
> OK, I think the kprobe is like a strong medicine, not a toy,
> since it can intercept most of the kernel functions which
> may process a sensitive user private data. Thus even if we
> fix all bugs and make it safe, I don't think we can open
> it for all users (of course, there should be a knob to open
> for any or restricted users.)
>
>> So we need both a maintainable and a sane/safe solution, and I'd like
>> to apply the whole thing at once and be at ease that the solution is
>> round. We should have done this years ago.
>
> For the safeness of kprobes, I have an idea; introduce a whitelist
> for dynamic events. AFAICS, the biggest unstable issue of kprobes
> comes from putting *many* probes on the functions called from tracers.
>
> It doesn't crash the kernel but slows down so much, because every
> probes hit many other nested miss-hit probes. This gives us a big
> performance impact. However, on the other side, this kind of feature
> can be used *for debugging* static trace events by dynamic one if we
> carefully use a small number of probes on such functions. :)
>
> Thus, I think we can restrict users from probing such functions by
> using a whitelist which ftrace does already have;
> available_filter_functions :)
I am not sure if this question is related, uprobes or ftrace code does
not define __kprobes, so is it safe to place kprobe on uprobes or
ftrace code? Is it expected from arch code to support such cases?
Thanks,
Sandeepa