On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:29:41PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > 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.
The reason why kprobes needs to be the first to run is simple: it doesn't need user intervention and if it isn't the intended recepient of the breakpoint, it just lets the kernel take over (unlike a debugger, which would potentially need user attention). Also, if the underlying instruction itself is a breakpoint, we have the facility in kprobes to single-step inline so the kernel can take control and notify any other intended recepient of the underlying breakpoint. As such, I believe the current situation is fine, has worked fine for close to 4 years now and doesn't warrant any change. Ananth -- 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/
