| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2.6.39-rc1-tip 7/26] 7: x86: analyze instruction and determine fixups. | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:29:11 -0400 |
| |
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:03 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> + > +static void report_bad_prefix(void) > +{ > + printk(KERN_ERR "uprobes does not currently support probing " > + "instructions with any of the following prefixes: " > + "cs:, ds:, es:, ss:, lock:\n"); > +} > + > +static void report_bad_1byte_opcode(int mode, uprobe_opcode_t op) > +{ > + printk(KERN_ERR "In %d-bit apps, " > + "uprobes does not currently support probing " > + "instructions whose first byte is 0x%2.2x\n", mode, op); > +} > + > +static void report_bad_2byte_opcode(uprobe_opcode_t op) > +{ > + printk(KERN_ERR "uprobes does not currently support probing " > + "instructions with the 2-byte opcode 0x0f 0x%2.2x\n", op); > +}
Should these really be KERN_ERR, or is KERN_WARNING a better fit?
Also, can a non-privileged user cause these printks to spam the console and cause a DoS to the system?
-- Steve
|