From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751503Ab3KFGHm (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:07:42 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f181.google.com ([209.85.215.181]:55832 "EHLO mail-ea0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750815Ab3KFGHl (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:07:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:07:37 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Steven Rostedt , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , x86@kernel.org, lkml , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Andrew Morton , Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v2 3/3] [BUGFIX] kprobes: Prohibit probing on func_ptr_is_kernel_text Message-ID: <20131106060737.GC24044@gmail.com> References: <20131101112530.14657.87835.stgit@kbuild-fedora.novalocal> <20131101112537.14657.88496.stgit@kbuild-fedora.novalocal> <20131104210053.76c37210@gandalf.local.home> <20131105060901.GA29936@gmail.com> <5278973A.1010705@hitachi.com> <20131105070537.GA2007@gmail.com> <5278D89B.1070806@hitachi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5278D89B.1070806@hitachi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >> [...] I hope to build the list when the kernel build time if > >> possible... Would you have any idea to classify some annotated(but no > >> side-effect) functions? > > > > The macro magic I can think of would need to change the syntax of the > > function definition - for example that is how the SYSCALL_DEFINE*() > > macros work. > > Would you mean something like the below macro? :) > > NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(int, func_ptr_is_kernel_text)(void *ptr) I think this is rather ugly and harder to maintain. The whole _point_ of such annotations is to make them 'easy on the eyes', to make it easy to skip a 'noinline', 'noprobe' or 'notrace' tag. Using something like NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() makes the whole construct ugly and attention seeking. So until compilers get smarter (or there's some compiler trick I haven't noticed) lets stay with the separate section - it's not the end of the world, the (effective) 'noinline' aspect of noprobes changes code generation anyway. Thanks, Ingo