From: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: ananth@in.ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com,
"Håvard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@gmail.com>,
"David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Hans-Christian Egtvedt" <egtvedt@samfundet.no>,
"yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com" <yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: kprobe: move all *kretprobe* generic implementation to CONFIG_KRETPROBES enabled area
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:18:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52F18367.2060803@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52F109AF.8040800@hitachi.com>
On 02/04/2014 11:39 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2014/02/04 22:53), Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 02/04/2014 09:29 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> (2014/02/04 21:07), Chen Gang wrote:
>>>> On 02/04/2014 03:17 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>>>> (2014/02/04 14:16), Chen Gang wrote:
>>>>>> When CONFIG_KRETPROBES disabled, all *kretprobe* generic implementation
>>>>>> are useless, so need move them to CONFIG_KPROBES enabled area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, *kretprobe* generic implementation are all implemented in 2 files:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - in "include/linux/kprobes.h":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> move inline kretprobe*() to CONFIG_KPROBES area and dummy outside.
>>>>>> move some *kprobe() declarations which kretprobe*() call, to front.
>>>>>> not touch kretprobe_blacklist[] which is architecture's variable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - in "kernel/kprobes.c":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> move all kretprobe* to CONFIG_KPROBES area and dummy outside.
>>>>>> define kretprobe_flush_task() to let kprobe_flush_task() call.
>>>>>> define init_kretprobes() to let init_kprobes() call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patch passes compiling (get "kernel/kprobes.o" and "kernel/built-
>>>>>> in.o") under avr32 and x86_64 allmodconfig, and passes building (get
>>>>>> bzImage and Modpost modules) under x86_64 defconfig.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the fix! and I have some comments below.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> include/linux/kprobes.h | 58 +++++----
>>>>>> kernel/kprobes.c | 328 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 222 insertions(+), 164 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/kprobes.h b/include/linux/kprobes.h
>>>>>> index 925eaf2..c0d1212 100644
>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
>>>>>> @@ -223,10 +223,36 @@ static inline int kprobes_built_in(void)
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +int disable_kprobe(struct kprobe *kp);
>>>>>> +int enable_kprobe(struct kprobe *kp);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +void dump_kprobe(struct kprobe *kp);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +extern struct kretprobe_blackpoint kretprobe_blacklist[];
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_KRETPROBES
>>>>>> extern void arch_prepare_kretprobe(struct kretprobe_instance *ri,
>>>>>> struct pt_regs *regs);
>>>>>> extern int arch_trampoline_kprobe(struct kprobe *p);
>>>>>> +static inline void kretprobe_assert(struct kretprobe_instance *ri,
>>>>>> + unsigned long orig_ret_address, unsigned long trampoline_address)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + if (!orig_ret_address || (orig_ret_address == trampoline_address)) {
>>>>>> + printk(KERN_ERR
>>>>>> + "kretprobe BUG!: Processing kretprobe %p @ %p\n",
>>>>>> + ri->rp, ri->rp->kp.addr);
>>>>>> + BUG();
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +static inline int disable_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return disable_kprobe(&rp->kp);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +static inline int enable_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return enable_kprobe(&rp->kp);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> #else /* CONFIG_KRETPROBES */
>>>>>> static inline void arch_prepare_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp,
>>>>>> struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>>> @@ -236,19 +262,20 @@ static inline int arch_trampoline_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> -#endif /* CONFIG_KRETPROBES */
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -extern struct kretprobe_blackpoint kretprobe_blacklist[];
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> static inline void kretprobe_assert(struct kretprobe_instance *ri,
>>>>>> unsigned long orig_ret_address, unsigned long trampoline_address)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - if (!orig_ret_address || (orig_ret_address == trampoline_address)) {
>>>>>> - printk("kretprobe BUG!: Processing kretprobe %p @ %p\n",
>>>>>> - ri->rp, ri->rp->kp.addr);
>>>>>> - BUG();
>>>>>> - }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +static inline int disable_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +static inline int enable_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> No, these should returns -EINVAL or -ENOSYS, since these are user API.
>>>>
>>>> OK, thanks, it sounds reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I don't think those inlined functions to be changed, because
>>>>> most of them are internal functions. If CONFIG_KRETPROBES=n, it just
>>>>> be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In original implementation, if CONFIG_KRETPROBES=n, kretprobe_assert(),
>>>> disable_kretprobe(), and enable_kretprobe() are not ignored.
>>>
>>> Really? where are they called? I mean, those functions do not have
>>> any instance unless your module uses it (but that is not what the kernel
>>> itself should help).
>>>
>>
>> If what you said correct (I guess so), for me, we still need let them in
>> CONFIG_KRETPROBES area, and without any dummy outside, just like another
>> *kprobe* static inline functions have done in "include/linux/kprobes.h".
>
> kretprobe_assert() is only for the internal check. So we don't need to care
> about, and disable/enable_kretprobe() are anyway returns -EINVAL because
> kretprobe can not be registered. And all of them are inlined functions.
> In that case, we don't need to care about it.
Hmm... it is related with code 'consistency':
- these static inline functions are kretprobe generic implementation,
and we are trying to let all kretprobe generic implementation within
CONFIG_KRETPROBES area.
- And original kprobe static inline functions have done like that,
in same header file, if no obvious reasons, we can try to follow.
> I just concerned that it is a waste of memory if there are useless kretprobe
> related instances are built when CONFIG_KRETPROBES=n.
>
Yeah, that is also one of reason (3rd reason).
And if necessary, please help check what we have done whether already
"let all kretprobe generic implementation within CONFIG_KRETPROBES area"
(exclude declaration, struct/union definition, and architecture
implementation).
> Thank you,
>
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang
Open, share and attitude like air, water and life which God blessed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-05 0:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-01 12:17 [PATCH] kernel/kprobes.c: move cleanup_rp_inst() to where CONFIG_KRETPROBES enabled Chen Gang
2014-02-02 2:40 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-03 11:48 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-03 15:42 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-04 2:25 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-04 5:16 ` [PATCH] kernel: kprobe: move all *kretprobe* generic implementation to CONFIG_KRETPROBES enabled area Chen Gang
2014-02-04 7:17 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-04 11:58 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-04 12:07 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-04 13:29 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-04 13:53 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-04 15:39 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-05 0:18 ` Chen Gang [this message]
2014-02-05 1:21 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-05 3:08 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-05 3:36 ` [PATCH] kernel/kprobes.c: move kretprobe implementation to CONFIG_KRETPROBES area Chen Gang
2014-02-05 5:00 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-05 5:08 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-05 5:27 ` [PATCH] include/linux/kprobes.h: move all functions to their matched area Chen Gang
2014-02-05 7:51 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-05 11:12 ` Chen Gang
2014-02-05 4:57 ` [PATCH] kernel: kprobe: move all *kretprobe* generic implementation to CONFIG_KRETPROBES enabled area Masami Hiramatsu
2014-02-05 5:13 ` Chen Gang
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=52F18367.2060803@gmail.com \
--to=gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=egtvedt@samfundet.no \
--cc=hskinnemoen@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).