[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFz28CvntOMF-Te0x=gn=XQcU8Zzi6E0iAhZb9mG5J-Ppg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:04:01 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Timo Juhani Lindfors <timo.lindfors@....fi>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Nadia Yvette Chambers <nyc@...omorphy.com>,
yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip ] [BUGFIX] kprobes: Move hash_64() into .text.kprobe section
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Masami Hiramatsu
<masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
> Beacuse hash_64() is called from the get_kprobe() inside
> int3 handler, kernel causes int3 recursion and crashes if
> kprobes user puts a probe on it.
>
> Usually hash_64() is inlined into caller function, but in
> some cases, it has instances by gcc's interprocedural
> constant propagation.
>
> This patch adds __kprobes tag on the hash_64()
NAK. Don't do this. Just force inlining. There's absolutely no way we
want to start adding __kprobe to random helper functions like this.
This isn't even about where "__kprobes" exists and whether we want to
include the header file. This is about the fact that hash64 has
absolutely *nothing* to do with kprobes, and we simply shouldn't do
crap like this regardless of whether we need a new #include or not.
Linus
--
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