From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@linaro.org>,
x86@kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
systemtap@sourceware.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and fixes crash bugs
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 01:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131207013249.GC3201@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52A25B71.3090108@hitachi.com>
Hi -
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 08:19:13AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> [...]
> > Would you plan to limit kprobes (or just the perf-probe frontend) to
> > only function-entries also?
> Exactly, yes :). Currently I have a patch for kprobe-tracer
> implementation (not only for perf-probe, but doesn't limit kprobes
> itself).
Interesting option. It sounds like a restrictive expedient that could
result in kprobes never being made sufficiently robust.
> > If not, and if intra-function statement-granularity kprobes remain
> > allowed within a function-granularity whitelist, then you might
> > still have those "quantitative" problems.
> Yes, but as far as I've tested, the performance overhead is not
> high, especially as far as putting kprobes at the entry of those
> functions because of ftrace-based optimization.
(Would that also make CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENT require KPROBES_ON_FTRACE?)
> > Even worse, kprobes robustness problems can bite even with a small
> > whitelist, unless you can test the countless subset selections
> > cartesian-product the aggrevating factors (like other tracing
> > facilities being in use at the same time, limited memory, high irq
> > rates, debugging sessions, architectures, whatever).
>
> And also, what script will run on each probe, right? :)
In the perf-probe world, the closest analogue could be varying the
contextual data that's being extracted (stack traces, parameters, ...).
> >> [...] For the long term solution, I think we can introduce some
> >> kind of performance gatekeeper as systemtap does. Counting the
> >> miss-hit rate per second and if it go over a threshold, disable next
> >> miss-hit (or most miss-hit) probe (as OOM killer does).
> >
> > That would make sense, but again it would not help deal with kprobes
> > robustness (in the kernel-crashing rather than kernel-slowdown sense).
>
> Why would you think so? Is there any hidden path for calling kprobes
> mechanism?? The kernel crash problem just comes from bugs, not the
> quantitative issue.
I don't think we're disagreeing. A performance-gatekeeper in
perf-probe or nearby would be useful (and manage the kprobe-quantity
problem). It would not be sufficient to prevent the kernel-crashing
bugs.
- FChE
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-07 1:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-04 1:34 Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 1:34 ` [PATCH -tip v4 1/6] kprobes: Prohibit probing on .entry.text code Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 1:35 ` [PATCH -tip v4 2/6] kprobes: Introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() macro for blacklist Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 1:36 ` [PATCH -tip v4 4/6] [BUGFIX] x86: Prohibit probing on native_set_debugreg Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 1:36 ` [PATCH -tip v4 5/6] [BUGFIX] x86: Prohibit probing on thunk functions and restore Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 1:36 ` [PATCH -tip v4 6/6] [RFC] kprobes/x86: Call exception handlers directly from do_int3/do_debug Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 2:39 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-12-11 13:31 ` Jiri Kosina
2013-12-12 4:40 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-12 9:59 ` Jiri Kosina
2013-12-12 10:31 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 1:36 ` [PATCH -tip v4 3/6] [BUGFIX] kprobes/x86: Prohibit probing on debug_stack_* Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 2:54 ` [PATCH -tip v4 0/6] kprobes: introduce NOKPROBE_SYMBOL() and fixes crash bugs Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-12-04 7:39 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 8:46 ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-12-04 23:32 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-04 8:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-04 23:28 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-05 10:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-06 2:34 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-10 15:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-11 2:12 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-11 13:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 6:02 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-12 14:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 20:42 ` Josh Stone
2013-12-13 5:34 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-13 6:06 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-16 10:53 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-05 13:08 ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-12-06 6:23 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-06 6:54 ` Sandeepa Prabhu
2013-12-06 23:26 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-05 14:49 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2013-12-06 6:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-06 19:08 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2013-12-06 23:19 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2013-12-07 1:33 ` Frank Ch. Eigler [this message]
2013-12-07 2:35 ` Masami Hiramatsu
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=20131207013249.GC3201@redhat.com \
--to=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sandeepa.prabhu@linaro.org \
--cc=systemtap@sourceware.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).