[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1398375414.4536.3.camel@oc7886638347.ibm.com.usor.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:36:54 -0700
From: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>,
David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Lebon <jlebon@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] uprobes/x86: cleanup validate_insn_* paths, fix
X86_X32 case
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 19:01 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Peter, feel free to ignore 1-4, but could you look at 5/5? It lacks the
> test-case because I do not have a x32-ready testing machine.
>
> On 04/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > This series only fixes the problem. I'll send more changes to address
> > some of TODO's mentioned in the changelogs later. In particular, we
> > need to do something with "callw", see "Note: in 13/15.
>
> So, what do you all think we should do with "callw"? Jim votes for
> declining to probe callw, and I fully agree.
>
> Any objection?
>
> Until then, lets cleanup the validate_insn_* paths and fix another bug.
> This cleanup can also simplify the next "reject callw" change.
>
> Oleg.
>
> arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c | 7 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c | 126 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
>
These 5 patches are:
Reviewed-by: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
--
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