[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090925110206.50ab8a20@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:02:06 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@...ibm.com>,
Rusty Lynch <rusty.lynch@...el.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Vamsi Krishna S <vamsi_krishna@...ibm.com>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Nathan Sidwell <nathan@...esourcery.com>,
Dominique Toupin <dominique.toupin@...csson.com>,
Anton Massoud <anton.massoud@...csson.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Immediate values
> Then, following your advice, kprobes should be re-designed to do a
> stop_machine around the int3 breakpoint insertion ? And gdb
> should be stopping all threads of a target process before inserting a
> breakpoint. Therefore, I do not seem to be the only one confused about
> Intel statement on this issue.
There was considerable discussion abut this when the kprobe stuff went
in. If I remember rightly it was stated by someone @intel.com then that
int3 was ok (even though its not strictly documented as such). The same
is not true for all instructions on all x86 processors unfortunately.
Alan
--
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