[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130326084533.GB22603@bandura.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:45:33 +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>,
adrian.m.negreanu@...el.com, Torsten.Polle@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] uretprobes: return probe entry, prepare_uretprobe()
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 04:26:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/22, Anton Arapov wrote:
[snip]
> And ->dirty looks confusing... perhaps ->chained ?
>
> ri = kzalloc(...);
> if (!ri)
> return;
>
> ret_vaddr = arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(...);
> if (ret_vaddr == -1)
> goto err;
>
> if (ret_vaddr == trampoline_vaddr) {
> if (!utask->return_instances) {
> // This situation is not possible.
> // (not sure we should send SIGSEGV)
> pr_warn(...);
> goto err;
> }
If we don't send SIGSEGV, does it make sense to restore the original
return address that was just hijacked? So that we just decline setting
the breakpoint for this very case.
Anton.
>
> ri->chained = true;
> ret_vaddr = utask->return_instances->orig_ret_vaddr;
> }
>
> fill-ri-and-add-push-it;
> return;
>
> err:
> kfree(ri);
> return;
>
> 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