Re:
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Date: 2023-05-23 05:30:42
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, lkml
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Date: 2023-05-23 05:30:42
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, lkml
On Mon, 22 May 2023 10:07:42 +0800 Ze Gao [off-list ref] wrote:
Oops, I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out, which I thought is
conditional use of rcu_is_watching before.
One last point, I think we should double check on this
"fentry does not filter with !rcu_is_watching"
as quoted from Yonghong and argue whether it needs
the same check for fentry as well.rcu_is_watching() comment says; * if the current CPU is not in its idle loop or is in an interrupt or * NMI handler, return true. Thus it returns *fault* if the current CPU is in the idle loop and not any interrupt(including NMI) context. This means if any tracable function is called from idle loop, it can be !rcu_is_watching(). I meant, this is 'context' based check, thus fentry can not filter out that some commonly used functions is called from that context but it can be detected. Thank you,
Regards, Ze
-- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) [off-list ref]