[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <863e9df20801032234v1a0eba9arfc71098a100bb145@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:04:35 +0530
From: "Abhishek Sagar" <sagar.abhishek@...il.com>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Harvey Harrison" <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, qbarnes@...il.com,
ananth@...ibm.com, jkenisto@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: kprobes change kprobe_handler flow
On 1/4/08, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com> wrote:
> I could understand what the original code did at last.
> If a kprobe is inserted on a breakpoint which other debugger inserts,
> it single step inline instead of out-of-line.(this is done in prepare_singlestep)
> In this case, (p && kprobe_running() && kcb->kprobe_status==KPROBE_HIT_SS)
> is true and we need pass the control to the debugger.
> And if (*p->ainsn.insn != BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) (or (p != kprobe_running())) in
> that case, there may be some bugs.
Yes, we can only fault while singlestepping for a unique case, which
is when we're singlestepping (in-line) a breakpoint because a probe
was installed on it. All other scenarios are a BUG . That's also
assuming that no exception will preempt singlestepping, whose codepath
has a probe on it.
> Now I think your original suggestion is correct.
> Please fix it in another patch.
Ok.
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu
>
> Software Engineer
> Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
> Software Solutions Division
>
> e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Thanks,
Abhishek Sagar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists