* [Bug tapsets/13693] New: make probefunc unprivileged
@ 2012-02-15 11:49 fche at redhat dot com
2012-02-15 12:02 ` [Bug tapsets/13693] " mjw at redhat dot com
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2012-02-15 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13693
Bug #: 13693
Summary: make probefunc unprivileged
Product: systemtap
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: tapsets
AssignedTo: systemtap@sourceware.org
ReportedBy: fche@redhat.com
Classification: Unclassified
probefunc/probemod have had a funny history as to where they try to get
function name strings from. The probe-point-parsing variant is depended
upon from the para-callgraph* examples, and that part could be well enough
unprivileged. Other usages dip into the equivalent symdata(), which is
(rightfully?) privileged.
We should not so intermingle these. We could deprecate the privileged
parts of probefunc(), so that in 1.8+, unprivileged scripts can use it
(for probe-point-parsing only, or some cleaner equivalent). Or we could
write a new function to do only that, and adjust sample scripts.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/13693] make probefunc unprivileged
2012-02-15 11:49 [Bug tapsets/13693] New: make probefunc unprivileged fche at redhat dot com
@ 2012-02-15 12:02 ` mjw at redhat dot com
2012-02-15 12:24 ` fche at redhat dot com
2012-09-28 19:47 ` smakarov at redhat dot com
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: mjw at redhat dot com @ 2012-02-15 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13693
Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mjw at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com> 2012-02-15 12:01:14 UTC ---
Should we just recommend pn() and pp() which are unprivileged?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/13693] make probefunc unprivileged
2012-02-15 11:49 [Bug tapsets/13693] New: make probefunc unprivileged fche at redhat dot com
2012-02-15 12:02 ` [Bug tapsets/13693] " mjw at redhat dot com
@ 2012-02-15 12:24 ` fche at redhat dot com
2012-09-28 19:47 ` smakarov at redhat dot com
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: fche at redhat dot com @ 2012-02-15 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13693
--- Comment #2 from Frank Ch. Eigler <fche at redhat dot com> 2012-02-15 12:23:54 UTC ---
> Should we just recommend pn() and pp() which are unprivileged?
Not so simple; for para-callgraph*, we don't want boilerplate
substrings of the pp/pn(), just the plain function names.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug tapsets/13693] make probefunc unprivileged
2012-02-15 11:49 [Bug tapsets/13693] New: make probefunc unprivileged fche at redhat dot com
2012-02-15 12:02 ` [Bug tapsets/13693] " mjw at redhat dot com
2012-02-15 12:24 ` fche at redhat dot com
@ 2012-09-28 19:47 ` smakarov at redhat dot com
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: smakarov at redhat dot com @ 2012-09-28 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: systemtap
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13693
Serguei Makarov <smakarov at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |smakarov at redhat dot com
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Serguei Makarov <smakarov at redhat dot com> 2012-09-28 19:47:06 UTC ---
Building on tapset improvements from PR6580, I implemented a preprocessor
conditional of the form %( systemtap_privilege == "privileged" / "unprivileged"
%? ... %: ... %). The probefunc() implementation now wraps all kernel-space
retrieval code in such a conditional, eliding it when compiled with a lower
privilege, while leaving the user-space code available.
This allows unprivileged use of probefunc() handily, while retaining backwards
compatibility with its kernel-space uses for privileged scripts (no
deprecation/rewriting necessary). For instance, para-callgraph* and such can
now be run in unprivileged mode, so long as the probe points they're handed are
appropriate of course.
It remains to document the new systemtap_privilege check in order to make it
available and documented if we want to consider it for similar uses in the
future. (i.e. for having a tapset function provide a subset of the normal
functionality in unprivileged mode)
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-28 19:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-02-15 11:49 [Bug tapsets/13693] New: make probefunc unprivileged fche at redhat dot com
2012-02-15 12:02 ` [Bug tapsets/13693] " mjw at redhat dot com
2012-02-15 12:24 ` fche at redhat dot com
2012-09-28 19:47 ` smakarov at redhat dot com
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).