[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190820165152.20275268@xhacker.debian>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 09:02:59 +0000
From: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] kprobes/x86: use instruction_pointer and
instruction_pointer_set
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:53:58 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>
> > This is to make the x86 kprobe_ftrace_handler() more common so that
> > the code could be reused in future.
>
> While I agree with the change in general, I can't find anything which
> reuses that code. So the change log is pretty useless and I have no idea
> how this is related to the rest of the series.
In v1, this code is moved from x86 to common kprobes.c [1]
But I agree with Masami, consolidation could be done when arm64 kprobes
on ftrace is stable.
In v2, actually, the arm64 version's kprobe_ftrace_handler() is the same
as x86's, the only difference is comment, e.g
/* Kprobe handler expects regs->ip = ip + 1 as breakpoint hit */
while in arm64
/* Kprobe handler expects regs->pc = ip + 1 as breakpoint hit */
W/ above, any suggestion about the suitable change log?
Thanks
[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2019-August/674417.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists