[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50213685.3010208@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:38:45 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ptrace: DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF fixes
On 08/07/2012 05:15 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> So I think __switch_to_extra() should set the bit before putting the
>> task on the CPU.
>
> Why?
Pardon me? __switch_to_extra() enables BTF before putting the task on
CPU. This is fine. I was trying to say that there is no need to touch
the debug register in debugger's context since __switch_to_extra() does
it.
>> If this bit is enabled on the wrong CPU then in will
>> remain set forever if single steeping has not been / will not be
>> enabled.
>
> I don't follow, could you explain in details?
The SMP case where the debugger runs on CPU0 and tracee on CPU1.
Without your "current != child" check the enable_block_step() enables
block stepping on CPU0 and switch_to_extra() on CPU1.
> Just in case, X86_EFLAGS_TF sits in task_pt_regs(next), it has no
> effect until the task returns to usermode. We only need to ensure
> DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF was set/cleared correctly when it actually returns.
Exactly. And __switch_to_extra() is perfect for the job (if we ignore
uprobes for a moment).
> Oleg.
Sebastian
--
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