[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130109161222.GA27722@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:12:22 +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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] uprobes: return probe implementation
On 01/09, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> There are RFC uretprobes implementation. I'd be grateful for review.
>
> RFCv1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/21/133
>
> I've intentionally removed the retprobe bypass logic, it requires
> a bit more work.
Yes, this is not trivial, lets do this separately.
> not fixed since last prior RFC review:
> unify xol_get_trampoline_slot() and xol_take_insn_slot()
This was of the reasons for "Do not play with utask in xol_get_insn_slot()"
I sent. After this patch you only need the trivial change
- static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe *uprobe)
+ static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(unsigned char *insn)
and now you do not need xol_get_trampoline_slot().
However. Why do you need it at all? Let me quote myself:
Or. Perhaps even better, do not add this helper at all. xol_alloc_area()
could reserve the first slot/bit for trampoline. And note that in this
case we do not need xol_area->rp_trampoline_vaddr, it is always equal
to xol_area->vaddr.
?
> protect uprobe in prepare_uretprobe()
This should be fixed ;)
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