This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: uprobes and empty functions
- From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Josh Stone <jistone at redhat dot com>, David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com>, ak at linux dot intel dot com, Systemtap List <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:12:48 +0530
- Subject: Re: uprobes and empty functions
- Reply-to: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
>
> > I only matched "f3 c3", but I'm not sure if we need bother with other
> > rep/ret variants for this special case. [...]
>
> I'm more worried that we're finding cases where uprobes is willing to
> place a breakpoint, but is not fully up to the job of executing the
> breakpointed instruction. To what extent could we flip over the tests
> from "known not to work" to "not known to work" in rejecting
> instructions?
>
Fche,
Andi had suggested running crashme http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/9/3/151
I plan to run crashme on the inode based uprobes code soon. Do you
thinking running crashme would help in identifying such potential
issues?
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar