|
From: Frederic W. <fwe...@gm...> - 2009-09-11 19:15:22
|
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:03:35PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Frederic Weisbecker <fwe...@gm...> writes: > > > [...] I'm really looking forward seeing this C expression-like > > kprobe creation tool. It seems powerful enough to replace printk + > > kernel rebuild. No need anymore to write some printk to debug, > > worrying, [...] > > To a large extent, systemtap had delivered this already some years > ago, including the cushy ponies dancing in the sunlight. While such > low-level machinery is fine, some of our experience indicates that it > is dramatically easier to use if high-level, symbolic, debugging data > is used to compute probe locations and variable names/types/locations. > > It is also too easy to stress the low-level machinery beyond its > humble origins, in this case meaning putting probes in all kinds of > tender spots that go "ouch". The kprobes robustness patches coming in > are great and will benefit all of our efforts, but it will be awhile > until the kernel can survive a fuzz/crashme type stress test on that > subsystem. So expect ongoing effort there. Fully agreed! The more I see corner recursivity cases, the more I think we'll never fix every potential cases. But yeah it's worth trying to fix all of them that are reported/anticipated, the more such case are covered, the more it's usable. |