[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 00/16] tracing: probeevent: Improve fetcharg features
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2018 13:41:53 +0530
> "Naveen N. Rao" <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I didn't understand that. Which code are you planning to remove? Can you
>> >> please elaborate? I thought we still need to disable preemption in the
>> >> ftrace handler.
>> >
>> > Yes, kprobe_ftrace_handler itself must be run under preempt disabled
>> > because it depends on a per-cpu variable. What I will remove is the
>> > redundant preempt disable/enable_noresched (unbalanced) pair in the
>> > kprobe_ftrace_handler, and jprobe x86 ports which is no more used.
>> Won't that break out-of-tree users depending on returning a non-zero
>> value to handle preemption differently? You seem to have alluded to it
>> earlier in the mail chain above where you said that this is not just for
>> jprobes (though it was added for jprobes as the main use case).
> No, all users are in tree already (function override for bpf and error-injection).

Ok, so BPF error injection is a new user that can return a non-zero
value from the pre handler. It looks like it can use KPROBES_ON_FTRACE

In that case, on function entry, we call into kprobe_ftrace_handler()
which will call fei_kprobe_handler(), which can re-enable premption
before returning 1. So, if you remove the additional
prempt_disable()/enable_no_resched() in kprobe_ftrace_handler(), then it
will become imbalanced, right?

> And also, for changing execution path by using kprobes, user handler must call
> not only preempt_enable(), but also clear current_kprobe per-cpu variable which
> is not exported to kmodules.

Ok, good point. And that means we don't have any external users any


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-08 12:11    [W:0.088 / U:5.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site