[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130116162022.GA2026@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:20:22 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>
Cc: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frank Eigler <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] uprobes: add bp_vaddr argument to consumer
handler
On 01/15, Josh Stone wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2013 09:06 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/10, Josh Stone wrote:
> >> and for uretprobes we want the original return address.
> >
> > Yes, Anton's v2 does this.
> >
> > But. Don't you also need to know the address of function we are going
> > to return from?
> >
> > Probably you do not, uprobe_consumer should know which function (but
> > not vaddr) it probes, but please confirm.
>
> Right, this is fine.
OK, thanks.
> Setting regs->ip to the entry address of the function we just returned
> from would actually be harmful,
Yes, yes, I understand. I meant, ->ret_hander() could have the additional
argument to tell the address of the function.
> Maybe it would be useful if regs->ip reflected the address of the RET
> instruction we just executed, but only if e.g. regs->sp also got rewound
> accordingly. Since I don't think this is possible, just setting
> regs->ip to the return target is good enough.
Yes, I guess this is not possible.
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