Abhishek Sagar wrote: > On 1/29/08, Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In that case, why don't you just reduce the priority of kprobe_exceptions_nb? >> Then, the execution path becomes very simple. > > Ananth mentioned that the kprobe notifier has to be the first to run.
(Hmm.. I think he has just explained current implementation:)) IMHO, since kprobes itself can not know what the external debugger wants to do, the highest priority should be reserved for those external tools. > It still wouldnt allow us to notice breakpoints on places like do_int3 > etc. If you'd like to do that, my recommendation is to modify IDT directly. >> I also like to use a debugger for debugging kprobes. that will help us. > > Hmm...It would increase the code-path leading upto kprobe_handler. > That's more territory to be guarded from kprobes. Sure, all functions of the debugger should be marked __kprobes. Thus it will be guarded from kprobes. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
