Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:30:34 +0900 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip v8 19/26] kprobes: Show blacklist entries via debugfs |
| |
(2014/03/25 5:19), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:00:56 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com> wrote: > > >> kernel/kprobes.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c >> index a21b4e6..3214289 100644 >> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c >> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c >> @@ -2249,6 +2249,46 @@ static const struct file_operations debugfs_kprobes_operations = { >> .release = seq_release, >> }; >> >> +/* kprobes/blacklist -- shows which functions can not be probed */ >> +static void *kprobe_blacklist_seq_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos) >> +{ >> + return seq_list_start(&kprobe_blacklist, *pos); >> +} >> + >> +static void *kprobe_blacklist_seq_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *pos) >> +{ >> + return seq_list_next(v, &kprobe_blacklist, pos); >> +} >> + > > Can modules use NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and have items being added to the > list as this is being read? That is, do we need locks?
At this point, no, the NOKPROBE_SYMBOL()s in module are just ignored.
> Also, are items removed. I need to go back and look at the > implementation of NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(), I'm just writing this as I think > about it ;-)
Actually, I've introduced a lock with module NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() support in the next patch. :) I'd like to split it because module blacklist support involves module subsystem update.
Thank you!
-- Masami HIRAMATSU IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
| |