[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120801134652.GA4707@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:46:52 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ananth@...ibm.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, mingo@...hat.com,
srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Q: user_enable_single_step() && update_debugctlmsr()
On 08/01, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 08/01/2012 03:01 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Lets ignore uprobes which needs the changes anyway. This is
>> only used by ptrace and the task is stopped. So, unless I missed
>> something obvious, this update_debugctlmsr() is simply unneeded,
>> __switch_to/__switch_to_xtra should notice _TIF_BLOCKSTEP and do
>> update_debugctlmsr(DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF).
>
> It looks like it unless a processes ptraces itself (which does not make
> much sense anyway).
and forbidden ;) See ptrace_attach()->same_thread_group().
>> But, worse, isn't it wrong? Suppose that debugger switches to
>> another TIF_SINGLESTEP&& !TIF_BLOCKSTEP task, in this case
>> we "leak" DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF, no?
>
> __switch_to_xtra() should notice the difference in the TIF_BLOCKSTEP
> flag and disable it.
And how it can notice the difference if there is no difference?
(unless, of course debugger is TIF_BLOCKSTEP'ed).
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