[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130110114254.GA12964@bandura.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:42:54 +0100
From: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...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 4/4] uretprobes: invoke return probe handlers
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:28:42PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/09, Anton Arapov wrote:
> >
> > static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > + struct xol_area *area;
> > unsigned long bp_vaddr;
> > int uninitialized_var(is_swbp);
> >
> > bp_vaddr = uprobe_get_swbp_addr(regs);
> > - uprobe = find_active_uprobe(bp_vaddr, &is_swbp);
> > + area = get_xol_area();
>
> No, we do not need to allocate xol area here.
>
> > + if (area) {
> > + if (bp_vaddr == area->vaddr) {
> > + handle_rp_swbp(regs);
>
> Can't understand... this should check bp_vaddr == rp_trampoline_vaddr ?
>
> Again, unless you remove rp_trampoline_vaddr altogether.
yeah, forgot to correct this chunk before I sent it here. I was working on
xol_get_trampoline_slot removal as you suggested.
thanks for valuable comments, seems you are okay with approach to add
rp_handler into uprobe_consumer struct.
Anton.
--
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