Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: kprobes: Show correct blaclkist in debugfs

[Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:20:25PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> This is v2 series for showing correct kprobe blacklist in
> debugfs.
> 
> v1 is here:
> 
>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/7/517
> 
> I splitted the RFC v1 patch into x86 and generic parts,
> also added a patch to remove unneeded arch-specific
> blacklist check function (because those have been added
> to the generic blacklist.)
> 
> If this style is good, I will make another series for the
> archs which have own arch_within_kprobe_blacklist(), and
> eventually replace that with arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist()
> so that user can get the correct kprobe blacklist in debugfs.
> 
> Thank you,

Looks good to me. Thanks!

Tested-by: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>

Side question: there are certain symbols in arch/x86/xen that should be
blacklisted explicitly, because they're non-attachable.

More exactly, all functions defined in arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c,
arch/x86/xen/time.c and arch/x86/xen/irq.c.

The reason is that these files are compiled without -pg to allow the
usage of ftrace within a Xen domain apparently (from
arch/x86/xen/Makefile):

 ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER
 # Do not profile debug and lowlevel utilities
 CFLAGS_REMOVE_spinlock.o = -pg
 CFLAGS_REMOVE_time.o = -pg
 CFLAGS_REMOVE_irq.o = -pg
 endif

Do you see a nice and clean way to blacklist all these functions
(something like arch_populate_kprobe_blacklist()), or should we just
flag all of them explicitly with NOKPROBE_SYMBOL()?

Thanks,
-Andrea