From: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Cc: Abhishek Sagar <sagar.abhishek@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
jkenisto@us.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][RFC] x86: Catch stray non-kprobe breakpoints
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:37:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080130040712.GA6762@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <479F7EA5.5040201@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:29:41PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Abhishek Sagar wrote:
> > On 1/29/08, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com> 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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-30 4:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-27 9:08 [PATCH 0/3][RFC] x86: Catch stray non-kprobe breakpoints Abhishek Sagar
2008-01-29 6:02 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2008-01-29 10:40 ` Abhishek Sagar
2008-01-29 13:18 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2008-01-29 17:24 ` Abhishek Sagar
2008-01-29 15:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2008-01-29 18:08 ` Abhishek Sagar
2008-01-29 19:29 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2008-01-30 4:07 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080130040712.GA6762@in.ibm.com \
--to=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=jkenisto@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sagar.abhishek@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox