Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758206Ab2EHDIS (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 23:08:18 -0400 Received: from mail7.hitachi.co.jp ([133.145.228.42]:58793 "EHLO mail7.hitachi.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758017Ab2EHDIR (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2012 23:08:17 -0400 X-AuditID: b753bd60-a2688ba000000655-40-4fa88e1ec79c X-AuditID: b753bd60-a2688ba000000655-40-4fa88e1ec79c Message-ID: <4FA88E1B.1020708@hitachi.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 12:08:11 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu Organization: Hitachi, Ltd., Japan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Frederic Weisbecker , "H. Peter Anvin" , yrl.pp-manager.tt@hitachi.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH 6/9][RFC] kprobes: Allow probe on ftrace reserved text (but move it) References: <20120502192418.024103772@goodmis.org> <20120502193237.321234712@goodmis.org> <1336002032.14207.52.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <4FA7B410.1000804@hitachi.com> <1336394603.14207.117.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <1336394603.14207.117.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1391 Lines: 36 (2012/05/07 21:43), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 20:37 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > >> By the way, there is another way to do that transparently which >> we add a "real_addr" member to struct kprobes and put the real >> probed address to the member (without changing kp->addr). This >> will keep API compatibility. > > I like this a lot. Perhaps we don't need a flag at all, and just use > these two addrs instead? Yes, just replacing all "*p->addr" and "kp.addr" with real_addr and copying addr to real_addr when registering. That's the basic idea. I just concern about the cost balance... this is feasible, but we need to change many arch-dependent parts. Do we really need to pay that cost just for the backward compatibility? I mean, the kprobes itself can be changed because we don't ensure the stability of kernel APIs. If so, it looks enough to change the behavior of kprobes and give an upgrade hint for users (current patch), isn't it? Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/