[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190430164413.GA18913@e107155-lin>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 17:44:13 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, jdike@...toit.com,
Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>,
Haibo Xu <haibo.xu@....com>, Bin Lu <bin.lu@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] x86: clean up _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU handling using
ptrace_syscall_enter hook
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 04:33:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> > @@ -70,22 +70,16 @@ static long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >
> > struct thread_info *ti = current_thread_info();
> > unsigned long ret = 0;
> > - bool emulated = false;
> > u32 work;
> >
> > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY))
> > BUG_ON(regs != task_pt_regs(current));
> >
> > - work = READ_ONCE(ti->flags) & _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY;
> > -
> > - if (unlikely(work & _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU))
> > - emulated = true;
> > -
> > - if ((emulated || (work & _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) &&
> > - tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
> > + if (unlikely(ptrace_syscall_enter(regs)))
> > return -1L;
> >
> > - if (emulated)
> > + work = READ_ONCE(ti->flags) & _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY;
> > + if ((work & _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE) && tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
> > return -1L;
>
[...]
>
> And it seems that _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY needs some cleanups too... We don't need
> "& _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY" in syscall_trace_enter, and _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY
> should not include _TIF_NOHZ?
>
I was about to post the updated version and checked this to make sure I have
covered everything or not. I had missed the above comment. All architectures
have _TIF_NOHZ in their mask that they check to do work. And from x86, I read
"...syscall_trace_enter(). Also includes TIF_NOHZ for enter_from_user_mode()"
So I don't understand why _TIF_NOHZ needs to be dropped.
Also if we need to drop, we can address that separately examining all archs.
I will post the cleanup as you suggested for now.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists