This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the systemtap project.
RE: instrumenting vs. module loading
- From: "Lynch, Rusty" <rusty dot lynch at intel dot com>
- To: "Hien Nguyen" <hien at us dot ibm 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 09:16:11 -0700
- Subject: RE: instrumenting vs. module loading
>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.
Do you mean have the systemtap generated kernel module add a dependency
on any instrumented modules? That would work.
--rusty