Martin Bligh <[email protected]> wrote on 19/09/2006 17:04:43:
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 08:11:40AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[...] Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere
> >>else, and make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)? Then
> >>reroute all the function calls through it [...]
> >
> >
> > Interesting idea. Are you imagining this instrumented copy being
> > built at kernel compile time (something like building a "-g -O0"
> > parallel)? Or compiled anew from original sources after deployment?
> > Or on-the-fly binary-level rewriting a la SPIN?
>
> "compiled anew from original sources after deployment" seems the most
> practical to do to me. From second hand info on using systemtap, you
> seem to need the same compiler and source tree to work from anyway, so
> this doesn't seem much of a burden.
>
If I'm not mistaken, this has been done before under the guise of dynamic
patch. Doesn't Solaris have the capability? I'm certain that some UNIXes do
as well as non-UNIX O/Ss.
Richard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
