[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A2D6A8C.1030703@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:46:20 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: ananth@...ibm.com, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
"K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemcheck: move hook before preempt_conditional_sti()
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 06:26:52PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> commit 787ecfaa503dc63ff1831ddc74b15dad49bace1d
>> Author: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
>> Date: Fri Apr 4 00:53:23 2008 +0200
>>
>> x86: add hooks for kmemcheck
>>
>> I encourage the kprobe developers to check whether their code is correct
>> as it stands in current tip/master. Also, comments on this particular
>> change is welcome.
>
> I see no problem with this change wrt kprobes, since the changes happen
> after the notify_die, by which time, kprobes would've returned
> NOTIFY_DONE since the per-cpu current_kprobe == NULL.
BTW, what will happen if kmemchecked page is accessed from
kprobe's single-stepping instruction? :-)
If a pagefault occurs before (kprobe's)single-step is done,
may kmemcheck's single-step handler be ignored by kprobe's
single-step handler? If it's true, I think kmemcheck hook
should be done before notify_die. (and add __kprobes to some
kmemcheck functions)
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.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