[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140128164811.GH10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:48:11 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] de-asmify the x86-64 system call slowpath
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:38:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/28, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:39:31PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/27, Al Viro wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why is _TIF_UPROBE *not* a part
> > > > of _TIF_DO_NOTIFY_MASK, for example?
> > >
> > > Yes, please see another email. That is why uprobe_deny_signal()
> > > sets TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME along with TIF_UPROBE.
> >
> > *grumble* Can it end up modifying *regs? From very cursory reading of
> > kernel/events/uprobe.c it seems to do so, so we probably want to leave
> > via iretq if that has hit, right?
>
> But we do this anyway, restore_args path does iretq?
>
> I mean, uprobe_notify_resume() is called from do_notify_resume(), it
> should be fine to modify*regs there?
See Linus' patch trying to avoid iretq path; it's really costly. Looks
like that patch will have to treat _TIF_UPROBE the same way it treats
_TIF_SIGPENDING...
--
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