[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1307112116360.29788@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:21:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instruction
patching
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > The current code assumes that one of the two code sequences is a NOP,
> > and therefore that jumping over the region is legal. This does not
> > allow for transitioning one active code sequence to another.
>
> Correct, and I think we should keep the two changes separate, as the NOP
> case is trivial. No need to complicate the trivial and common updates
> (jump_labels and ftrace). But for things like kprobes, we could do a bit
> more complex code, but it should probably be separate.
>
> Perhaps call this text_poke_nop_bp()?
Hmm ... I don't think this is exactly precise, at least as long as the
implementation in the patchset I have submitted is concerned.
Yes, most use cases (jump labels, perhaps ftrace) will simply be skipping
over the patched region, pretending that NOP has been there; but the
handler provided to text_poke_bp() is completely free to do any other kind
of trickery.
The one that jump label provides in PATCH 2/2 really just skips over the
region, yes. But the interface potentially allows for more.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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