From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9915 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2005 02:31:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9859 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2005 02:31:05 -0000 In-Reply-To: <433819DC.9020708@us.ibm.com> To: systemtap@sources.redhat.com Cc: fche@elastic.org, hien@us.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: kernel panic when kretprobe all system calls X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.3 September 14, 2004 Message-ID: From: Guang Lei Li Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:31:00 -0000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d23m0017/23/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF654 | July 22, 2005) at 11/08/2005 10:30:53, Serialize complete at 11/08/2005 10:30:53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 systemtap-owner@sources.redhat.com wrote on 2005-09-26 23:55:08: > Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > >Hi - > > > >>[... kretprobes on syscalls ...] > > > >This has been seen before, and is being tracked as bug #1345 in > >bugzilla. It has apparently been reproduced by the kretprobes > >developers and is being debugged. More RAM seems to trigger the > >bug less often. > > > >- FChE > > > It helps if we don't insert return probes in sys_calls such as > sys_execve, sys_exit, sys_groupexit. Frank, can we tempory put an > retprobe embargo policy on those system calls? > > Hien. > Hi, how is the bug #1345 going now? I ran the latest systemTap to probe all returns of syscalls on my x86, and still got kernel panic. Although I didn't meet the same problem on my Power5 system, I think it is due to the large RAM of it(15G) I looked into the comments in the bugzilla, and found Hien has worked out a fix for i386. But he abandoned his idea because of not portable. So at present, will I avoid this problem only by not probing the return of those syscalls in the blacklist? Is there a better solution now? Thanks.