From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31732 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2012 16:42:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 31642 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2012 16:42:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:42:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0JGg9Na011433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:42:09 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.129] (ovpn-113-129.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.129]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0JGg9jT031208 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:42:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4F1847E0.7010103@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:42:00 -0000 From: Josh Stone User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: systemtap@sourceware.org Subject: Re: automated way to find functions that we might want to blacklist References: <84bor03ij9.fsf@sauna.l.org> <20111223211030.GA23631@sli.dy.fi> <20120115214402.GG6309@sli.dy.fi> <4F15D792.2050408@redhat.com> <20120119131003.GC26534@sli.dy.fi> In-Reply-To: <20120119131003.GC26534@sli.dy.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-q1/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 On 01/19/2012 05:10 AM, Sami Liedes wrote: > Is there a way to blacklist a single place where one of these is > inlined? I don't think blacklisting the offending function where these > are inlined would prevent the crash with 'probe > kernel.function("hash_64") {}'. Or would it? Currently, we don't. We do check whether the inlined address is anywhere within a __kprobes-marked function, but the name comparison is only done on the inline function itself. We could enhance this though, because that nesting hierarchy is present in DWARF.