[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150109175936.GB13161@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:59:36 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
tixy@...aro.org, ananth@...ibm.com, sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, wcohen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 8/8] ARM64: Add uprobe support
On 12/31, Pratyush Anand wrote:
>
> +int arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
> + unsigned long addr)
> +{
> + probe_opcode_t insn;
> +
> + insn = *(probe_opcode_t *)(&auprobe->insn[0]);
> +
> + switch (arm_probe_decode_insn(insn, &auprobe->ainsn)) {
> + case INSN_REJECTED:
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + case INSN_GOOD_NO_SLOT:
> + auprobe->simulate = true;
> + if (auprobe->ainsn.prepare)
> + auprobe->ainsn.prepare(insn, &auprobe->ainsn);
> + break;
> +
> + case INSN_GOOD:
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
forgot to mention... shouldn't it also check IS_ALIGNED(addr, AARCH64_INSN_SIZE) ?
I do not know if unaligned insn address is valid on arm64 or not, but please
note that at least it should not cross the page boundary, set_swbp() needs to
write AARCH64_INSN_SIZE == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN bytes and it assumes that this
should fit the single page.
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