This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the systemtap project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: instrumenting vs. module loading

From: Hien Nguyen <hien at us dot ibm dot com>
To: "Lynch, Rusty" <rusty dot lynch at intel dot com>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <amavin at redhat dot com>, William Cohen <wcohen at redhat dot com>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 08:56:21 -0700
Subject: Re: instrumenting vs. module loading
References: <032EB457B9DBC540BFB1B7B519C78B0E071EAC65@orsmsx404.amr.corp.intel.com>

Lynch, Rusty wrote:

Another idea could be that when we register a kprobe, we check to see if
the address space is in the module address space.  If it is then add a
dependency on that module, and then release that dependency after the
kprobe is removed.  This would make the module unloader refuse to unload
the module while we have it instrumented (like if you try to unload your
network driver while your network is up.)

--rusty

Or loading a dummy module on demand that depends on the kprobes module.
That would have the same effect as Rusty indicated without modify kprobes.

Hien.

References:
- RE: instrumenting vs. module loading
  - From: Lynch, Rusty

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]