Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 3.2-rc2 5/30] uprobes: copy of the original instruction. | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:52:10 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 14:49 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 19:40 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > + /* TODO : Analysis and verification of instruction */ > > > > As in refuse to set a breakpoint on an instruction we can't deal with? > > > > Do we care? The worst case we'll crash the program, but if we're allowed > > setting uprobes we already have enough privileges to do that anyway, > > right? > > Well, I wouldn't be happy if I was running a server, and needed to > analyze something it was doing, and because I screwed up the location of > my probe, I crash the server, made lots of people unhappy and lose my > job over it. > > I think we do care, but it can be a TODO item.
But but but, why not let userspace sort it? And if you're going to provide the kernel with inode:offset data yourself, you're already well aware of wtf you're doing.
| |