[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111130185751.GA8160@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:57:51 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 8/30] x86: analyze instruction and determine
fixups.
On 11/18, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> +static void handle_riprel_insn(struct mm_struct *mm, struct uprobe *uprobe,
> + struct insn *insn)
> +{
> [...snip...]
> + if (insn->immediate.nbytes) {
> + cursor++;
> + memmove(cursor, cursor + insn->displacement.nbytes,
> + insn->immediate.nbytes);
> + }
> + return;
> +}
Of course I don not understand this code. But it seems that it can
rewrite uprobe->insn ?
If yes, don't we need to save the original insn for unregister_uprobe?
Oleg.
--
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