lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation
From
Date
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 16:35 +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:33:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:56 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > > Hi Peter,
> > > >
> > > > Or there could be two threads that could be racing to
> > > > insert/delete a breakpoint. These synchronization issues are all handled
> > > > by the Uprobes layer.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't be hard to put that in the ubp layer, right?
> > >
> > > > Uprobes layer would need to be notified of process life-time events
> > > > like fork/clone/exec/exit.
> > >
> > > No so much the process lifetimes as the vma life times are interesting,
> > > placing a hook in the vm code to track that isn't too hard,
> > >
> >
> > I think similar hooks were given thumbs down in the previous incarnation
> > of uprobes (which was implemented without utrace).
> >
> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0603.2/1254.html
>
> I wasn't at all proposing to mess with a_ops, nor do you really need to,
> I was more thinking of adding a callback like perf_event_mmap() and a
> corresponding unmap(), that way you can track mapping life-times and
> add/remove probes accordingly.
>
> Adding the probe uses the fact that (most) executable mappings are
> MAP_PRIVATE and CoWs a private copy of the page with the modified ins,
> right?

Does it clean up the CoW'ed page on removing the probe? Does that
account for userspace having made other changes in between installing
and removing the probe (for PROT_WRITE mappings obviously)?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-15 12:21    [W:0.238 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site