[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5265F4EB.2060803@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:45:47 -0400
From: David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
"Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@...aro.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits
On 10/19/13 13:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/15, David Long wrote:
>>
>> @@ -1732,9 +1732,6 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> - /* change it in advance for ->handler() and restart */
>> - instruction_pointer_set(regs, bp_vaddr);
>> -
>
> Well, this looks obviously wrong. This SET_IP() has the comment ;)
>
> Note also that with this breaks __skip_sstep() on x86.
>
> Oleg.
>
Yes, and there's a missing weak stub function in there too. It was a
surprise to me that declaring an external as weak means that it quietly
ignores the fact there is no definition for it at link time, and makes
it zero. I think there may be some similar land mines elsewhere in the
kernel, unrelated to these changes or uprobes in general.
I have an updated version to go out with the v3 patches. It is working
with v3.12-rc6 on x86 and ARM, to the extent I'm able to test it.
-dl
--
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