[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200219162747.GX2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 08:27:47 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, gustavo@...eddedor.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, josh@...htriplett.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
luto@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, frederic@...nel.org,
dan.carpenter@...cle.com, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/22] x86/doublefault: Make memmove() notrace/NOKPROBE
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:12:28AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:04:42 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > - memmove(&gpregs->ip, (void *)regs->sp, 5*8);
> > > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > > + int idx = (dst <= src) ? i : count - i;
> >
> > That's an off-by-one for going backward; 'count - 1 - i' should work
> > better, or I should just stop typing for today ;-)
>
> Or, we could just cut and paste the current memmove and make a notrace
> version too. Then we don't need to worry bout bugs like this.
OK, I will bite...
Can we just make the core be an inline function and make a notrace and
a trace caller? Possibly going one step further and having one call
the other? (Presumably the traceable version invoking the notrace
version, but it has been one good long time since I have looked at
function preambles.)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists