[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aTaodcF1ACgQneRT@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2025 11:29:09 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] uprobe/x86: Add support to optimize prologue
On 12/08, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:12:42 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/17, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > >
> > > There's an additional issue that single instruction replacement does
> > > not have and it's the possibility of the user space code to jump in the
> > > middle of those 5 bytes. I think it's unlikely to happen at the function
> > > prologue, but uprobe could be placed anywhere. I'm not sure how to
> > > mitigate this other than having some enable/disable switch or config
> > > option, which is unfortunate.
> >
> > plus this breaks single-stepping... Although perhaps we don't really care.
>
> Yeah, and I think we can stop optimization if post_handler is set.
Hmm, why? This doesn't depend on whether ->ret_handler is set or not...
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists