[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:23:26 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault()
On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one
>>>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed
>>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]()
>>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is
>>>> not this better ?
>>>
>>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>>>
>>> search for 'kprobes'.
>>>
>>> tell me what you think.
>>
>> Are you referring to these following commits
>>
>> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()")
>> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code")
>>
>> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context
>> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective
>> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it
>> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible.
>> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt
>> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms,
>> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around.
>
> Exactly.
>
> So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently
> from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation
> for all the architectures supporting kprobes?
So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this.
int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap)
{
int ret = 0;
/*
* To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed
* to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
*/
if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) {
if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
ret = 1;
}
return ret;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists