On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:48:20 +0200 [email protected] wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:35:08AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:57:43 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Similar to how we disallow kprobes on any other dynamic text > > > (ftrace/jump_label) also disallow kprobes on inline static_call()s. > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> > > > > BTW, here we already have 5 subsystems which reserves texts > > (ftrace, alternatives, jump_label, static_call and kprobes.) > > > > Except for the kprobes and ftrace, we can generalize the reserved-text > > code because those are section-based static address-areas (or lists). > > Doesn't ftrace also have a section where it lists all the mcount > locations?
Is the data format in the section same as others? > > On top of that ftrace probably registers its trampolines. Good point. I think trampolines are filtered by kernel_text() check. > > Do we support adding kprobes to BPF-JIT'ed code or should we blacklist > them too? No, we should blacklist it, because JIT'ed code will be used in kprobes context. In that case, I think it is better to provide partially execute non-JIT code and interrupt the interpreter. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
