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: Masami Hiramatsu <masami dot hiramatsu dot pt at hitachi dot com>
- To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel dot org>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>, Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa dot prabhu at linaro dot org>, 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: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:34:45 +0900
- 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> <y0mvbz3pd3z dot fsf at fche dot csb> <52A16AD7 dot 6040500 at hitachi dot com> <20131206190753 dot GA3201 at redhat dot com> <52A25B71 dot 3090108 at hitachi dot com> <20131207013249 dot GC3201 at redhat dot com>
(2013/12/07 10:32), Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 08:19:13AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> Would you plan to limit kprobes (or just the perf-probe frontend) to
>>> only function-entries also?
>
>> Exactly, yes :). Currently I have a patch for kprobe-tracer
>> implementation (not only for perf-probe, but doesn't limit kprobes
>> itself).
>
> Interesting option. It sounds like a restrictive expedient that could
> result in kprobes never being made sufficiently robust.
the raw-kprobes users like systemtap can also implement its own
whitelist. :) ftrace-based whitelist is only useful for ftrace/perf.
Anyway, the list is open via debugfs as available_filter_functions.
>>> If not, and if intra-function statement-granularity kprobes remain
>>> allowed within a function-granularity whitelist, then you might
>>> still have those "quantitative" problems.
>
>> Yes, but as far as I've tested, the performance overhead is not
>> high, especially as far as putting kprobes at the entry of those
>> functions because of ftrace-based optimization.
>
> (Would that also make CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENT require KPROBES_ON_FTRACE?)
Ah, no but a good point. at least the whitelist requires
CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER.
>>> Even worse, kprobes robustness problems can bite even with a small
>>> whitelist, unless you can test the countless subset selections
>>> cartesian-product the aggrevating factors (like other tracing
>>> facilities being in use at the same time, limited memory, high irq
>>> rates, debugging sessions, architectures, whatever).
>>
>> And also, what script will run on each probe, right? :)
>
> In the perf-probe world, the closest analogue could be varying the
> contextual data that's being extracted (stack traces, parameters, ...).
Yes, it should be verified before accessing it (and already done).
>>>> [...] For the long term solution, I think we can introduce some
>>>> kind of performance gatekeeper as systemtap does. Counting the
>>>> miss-hit rate per second and if it go over a threshold, disable next
>>>> miss-hit (or most miss-hit) probe (as OOM killer does).
>>>
>>> That would make sense, but again it would not help deal with kprobes
>>> robustness (in the kernel-crashing rather than kernel-slowdown sense).
>>
>> Why would you think so? Is there any hidden path for calling kprobes
>> mechanism?? The kernel crash problem just comes from bugs, not the
>> quantitative issue.
>
> I don't think we're disagreeing. A performance-gatekeeper in
> perf-probe or nearby would be useful (and manage the kprobe-quantity
> problem). It would not be sufficient to prevent the kernel-crashing
> bugs.
Right. Ah, I just meant that we'd better add those features, not
replacing the blacklist. And the blacklist should be maintained
anyway. :)
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com