This patch includes i386 architecture specific changes to support temporary
disarming on reentrancy of probes.
Signed-of-by: Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This patch moves the lock/unlock of the arch specific kprobe_flush_task()
to the non-arch specific kprobe_flusk_task().
Signed-off-by: Hien Nguyen <hien@us.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
The architecture independent code of the current kprobes implementation is
arming and disarming kprobes at registration time. The problem is that the
code is assuming that arming and disarming is a just done by a simple write
of some magic value to an address. This is problematic for ia64 where our
instructions look more like structures, and we can not insert break points
by just doing something like:
*p->addr = BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION;
The following patch to 2.6.12-rc4-mm2 adds two new architecture dependent
functions:
* void arch_arm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
* void arch_disarm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
and then adds the new functions for each of the architectures that already
implement kprobes (spar64/ppc64/i386/x86_64).
I thought arch_[dis]arm_kprobe was the most descriptive of what was really
happening, but each of the architectures already had a disarm_kprobe()
function that was really a "disarm and do some other clean-up items as
needed when you stumble across a recursive kprobe." So... I took the
liberty of changing the code that was calling disarm_kprobe() to call
arch_disarm_kprobe(), and then do the cleanup in the block of code dealing
with the recursive kprobe case.
So far this patch as been tested on i386, x86_64, and ppc64, but still
needs to be tested in sparc64.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Lynch <rusty.lynch@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This patch adds function-return probes to kprobes for the i386
architecture. This enables you to establish a handler to be run when a
function returns.
1. API
Two new functions are added to kprobes:
int register_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp);
void unregister_kretprobe(struct kretprobe *rp);
2. Registration and unregistration
2.1 Register
To register a function-return probe, the user populates the following
fields in a kretprobe object and calls register_kretprobe() with the
kretprobe address as an argument:
kp.addr - the function's address
handler - this function is run after the ret instruction executes, but
before control returns to the return address in the caller.
maxactive - The maximum number of instances of the probed function that
can be active concurrently. For example, if the function is non-
recursive and is called with a spinlock or mutex held, maxactive = 1
should be enough. If the function is non-recursive and can never
relinquish the CPU (e.g., via a semaphore or preemption), NR_CPUS should
be enough. maxactive is used to determine how many kretprobe_instance
objects to allocate for this particular probed function. If maxactive <=
0, it is set to a default value (if CONFIG_PREEMPT maxactive=max(10, 2 *
NR_CPUS) else maxactive=NR_CPUS)
For example:
struct kretprobe rp;
rp.kp.addr = /* entrypoint address */
rp.handler = /*return probe handler */
rp.maxactive = /* e.g., 1 or NR_CPUS or 0, see the above explanation */
register_kretprobe(&rp);
The following field may also be of interest:
nmissed - Initialized to zero when the function-return probe is
registered, and incremented every time the probed function is entered but
there is no kretprobe_instance object available for establishing the
function-return probe (i.e., because maxactive was set too low).
2.2 Unregister
To unregiter a function-return probe, the user calls
unregister_kretprobe() with the same kretprobe object as registered
previously. If a probed function is running when the return probe is
unregistered, the function will return as expected, but the handler won't
be run.
3. Limitations
3.1 This patch supports only the i386 architecture, but patches for
x86_64 and ppc64 are anticipated soon.
3.2 Return probes operates by replacing the return address in the stack
(or in a known register, such as the lr register for ppc). This may
cause __builtin_return_address(0), when invoked from the return-probed
function, to return the address of the return-probes trampoline.
3.3 This implementation uses the "Multiprobes at an address" feature in
2.6.12-rc3-mm3.
3.4 Due to a limitation in multi-probes, you cannot currently establish
a return probe and a jprobe on the same function. A patch to remove
this limitation is being tested.
This feature is required by SystemTap (http://sourceware.org/systemtap),
and reflects ideas contributed by several SystemTap developers, including
Will Cohen and Ananth Mavinakayanahalli.
Signed-off-by: Hien Nguyen <hien@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Frederik Deweerdt <frederik.deweerdt@laposte.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Kprobes could not handle the insertion of a probe on the ret/lret
instruction and used to oops after single stepping since kprobes was
modifying eip/rip incorrectly. Adjustment of eip/rip is not required after
single stepping in case of ret/lret instruction, because eip/rip points to
the correct location after execution of the ret/lret instruction. This
patch fixes the above problem.
Signed-off-by: Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
Prasanna S Panchamukhi