[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121223154910.GA7106@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:49:10 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>, Frank Eigler <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] uprobes: add bp_vaddr argument to consumer
handler
On 12/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Forgot to ask...
>
> On 12/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 12/21, Anton Arapov wrote:
> > >
> > > struct uprobe_consumer {
> > > - int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs);
> > > + int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, unsigned long bp_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> >
> > It seems that we can do better...
> >
> > Just change regs->ip before calling ->handler().
>
> Josh, Frank, will it work for you?
Wait, probably I was confused by this patch and 4/6...
To simplify, lets ignore the normal uprobes. Yes I still think that it
would be better to set "regs->ip = orig_return_vaddr" before calling
->handler() and not pass it as an argument.
But, probably uprobe_consumer also needs to know bp_vaddr? IOW, the
address of the function which we are going to return from? In this case,
yes, we also need another argument. And prepare_uretprobe/etc should
be changed to record bp_vaddr passed from handle_swbp(). And
uretprobe_run_handlers() should pass this bp_vaddr, not orig_return_vaddr.
Or I am confused.
Anton?
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