[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111124182015.4ef4b86a.srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:20:15 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3.2-rc2 5/30] uprobes: copy of the original
instruction.
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:40:16 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > + /* TODO : Analysis and verification of instruction
> > */
>
> As in refuse to set a breakpoint on an instruction we can't deal with?
>
> Do we care? The worst case we'll crash the program, but if we're
> allowed setting uprobes we already have enough privileges to do that
> anyway, right?
>
I think we should and we do care.
That's already implemented in the subsequent patches too.
For example: we don't a trace breakpoint instruction.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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