lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2.6.39-rc1-tip 7/26] 7: x86: analyze instruction and determine fixups.
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> [2011-04-19 09:29:11]:

> 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?
>

Sometimes, the user might try registering a probe at a valid file +
valid offset + valid consumer; but an instruction that we cant probe.
Then trying to figure why its failing would be very hard.

how about pr_warn_ratelimited()?

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-21 19:47    [W:0.128 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site