[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080906221231.GA9359@c2.user-mode-linux.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 18:12:31 -0400
From: Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
To: John Reiser <jreiser@...Wagon.com>
Cc: Steve VanDeBogart <vandebo-lkml@...dBox.Net>, jiayingz@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, dkegel@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 2/6] UML: Don't valgrind userspace
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 01:55:34PM -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> > This is effectively appropriating part of the kernel's ABI for
> > valgrind's use.
>
> UML is part of the kernel, so getting a memory reference checker (valgrind)
> running in UML is part of the kernel, too. The concept of "escape from the
> virtualizer" eventually occurs to more than just memory reference checkers.
Irrelevant - what if UML, or anything else for that matter, starts
using CLONE_IO? All of a sudden, valgrind will start letting those
threads go.
> Why wouldn't that be a race between the next _NR_clone from this thread
> and the next _NR_clone from any other existing thread [in the same
> process]?
Yeah, if you cloned in a signal handler, that would be a problem.
How about sticking the annotation in the thread itself? This may be
what you're suggesting here - I can't really tell.
> Valgrind can pre-pend a block of code at the start of the new thread,
> but almost immediately that code will want to "unvirtualize."
> Doing so at _NR_clone itself is convenient all around.
Jeff
--
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com
--
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