* Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> wrote:
> > So we need both a maintainable and a sane/safe solution, and I'd
> > like to apply the whole thing at once and be at ease that the
> > solution is round. We should have done this years ago.
>
> For the safeness of kprobes, I have an idea; introduce a whitelist
> for dynamic events. AFAICS, the biggest unstable issue of kprobes
> comes from putting *many* probes on the functions called from
> tracers.
If the number of 'noprobe' annotations is expected to explode then
maybe another approach should be considered.
For example in perf we detect recursion. Could kprobes do that and
detect hitting a probe while running kprobes code, and ignore it [do
an early return]?
That way most of the annotations could be removed and kprobes would
become inherently safe. Is there any complication I'm missing?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
