[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140513171148.GA12123@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 19:11:48 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: can't we kill DIE_GPF ? (Was: x86/traps: cleanup DO_ERROR*()
to prepare for uprobes fixes)
On 05/13, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2014/05/09 23:07), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>
> >> For example, after this series
> >> we can convert math_error() into the "normal" DO_ERROR() user, and most probably
> >> we can do the same with do_general_protection().
> >
> > As for do_general_protection(), the problem is DIE_GPF.
> >
> > Masami, could you explain why it is needed ? kprobe_exceptions_notify()
> > is the only user, can't it use DIE_TRAP and check trapnr = X86_TRAP_GP ?
>
> Actually, this may be only for something which will happen on
> single-stepping out-of-line. And yes, I can move it onto the DIE_TRAP :)
>
> >
> > And if it can, probably we can do notify_die() at the start like other
> > DO_ERROR() functions do ?
>
> Agreed, it seems OK to me. (and seems better, since we can handle GPF
> before changing task->thread struct)
>
> Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Great, thanks!
I'll resend this patch with the changelog and other changes.
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