[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263636249.4244.525.camel@laptop>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:04:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
Cc: maneesh@...ibm.com, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:44 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:12 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ....
> >
> > Adding the probe uses the fact that (most) executable mappings are
> > MAP_PRIVATE and CoWs a private copy of the page with the modified ins,
> > right?
> >
> > What does it do for MAP_SHARED|MAP_EXECUTABLE sections -- simply fail to
> > add the probe?
>
> If the vma containing the instruction to be probed has the VM_EXEC flag
> set (and it's not in the XOL area) we go ahead and try to probe it. I'm
> not familar with the implications of MAP_SHARED|MAP_EXECUTABLE -- how
> you would get such a combo, or what access_process_vm() would do with
> it.
I'm not sure how you'd get one, the user has to explicitly create one I
think, regular loaders don't create such things, but maybe JITs do.
The problem is that for MAP_SHARED you cannot CoW the page, you have to
modify the original page, which might get written back into a file if
its file based, not something you'd want to have happen I guess.
--
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