[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120308134809.GB28488@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:48:09 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes/core: handle breakpoint and signal step
exception.
* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> @@ -233,9 +233,11 @@ static inline void __user *arch_compat_alloc_user_space(long len)
>
> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32)) {
> sp = task_pt_regs(current)->sp;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> } else {
> /* -128 for the x32 ABI redzone */
> sp = __this_cpu_read(old_rsp) - 128;
> +#endif
> }
>
> return (void __user *)round_down(sp - len, 16);
So 'sp' is undefined if that TIF check fails?
Also, on a 32-bit kernel the TIF check probably fails all the
time, because we don't set TIF_IA32 (and don't know that flag).
It would probably be better to make the whole helper inline
#ifdef 64-bit, it does not look very useful on 32-bit.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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