This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the systemtap project.
RE: 3 bugs found.
- From: "Mao, Bibo" <bibo dot mao at intel dot com>
- To: "Vara Prasad" <prasadav at us dot ibm dot com>, "Keshavamurthy, Anil S" <anil dot s dot keshavamurthy at intel dot com>, "Prasanna S Panchamukhi" <prasanna at in dot ibm dot com>, "Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli" <ananth at in dot ibm dot com>, "Masami Hiramatsu" <hiramatu at sdl dot hitachi dot co dot jp>
- Cc: "David Smith" <dsmith at redhat dot com>, "James Dickens" <jamesd dot wi at gmail dot com>, "SystemTAP" <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:08:07 +0800
- Subject: RE: 3 bugs found.
I am not kprobes experts, but I am going to write kprobe test case to narrow down what is the fundamental problem. If you have any suggestion, please inform me :)
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
>On Behalf Of Vara Prasad
>Sent: 2006年9月21日 1:04
>To: Keshavamurthy, Anil S; Prasanna S Panchamukhi; Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli;
>Cc: David Smith; James Dickens; SystemTAP
>Subject: Re: 3 bugs found.
>David Smith wrote:
>> I've found it. If I add '_raw_spin_unlock' to the blacklist (along
>> with 'atomic_notifier_call_chain' and '_spin_unlock_irqrestore'), then
>> probing kernel.function("*") works fine for me on x86.
>David, thanks a bunch for narrowing it down to this small list.
>> Note that once again I'm not sure that is the correct fix (adding it
>> to the blacklist), I just wanted to get past it.
>I think our kprobes experts can now write a simple kprobes module to
>reproduce the problem and narrow it down further to see what is the
>fundamental problem. If it turns out something we can't change these
>functions or some call these functions make to be safe to probe we may
>be able to put magic __kprobes macro to prevent anyone stumbling into
>these functions via probes.
>Do I hear any volunteers from the kprobe folks in the To list?