Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:07:16 +0900 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][take2][2/2] kprobe: kprobe-booster against 2.6.16-rc5 for i386 |
| |
Hi, Andrew
Andrew Morton wrote: > Masami Hiramatsu <hiramatu@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> wrote: >> Here is a patch of kprobe-booster for i386 arch against linux-2.6.16-rc5. >> The kprobe-booster patch is also under the influence of the NX-protection >> support patch. So, I fixed that. >> >> Could you replace the previous patches with these patches? > > I'd prefer not to. Once a patch has been in -mm for this long I really > prefer to not see wholesale replacements. When people do this to me I > usually turn their replacements into incremental patches so we can see what > changed. Which is useful. > > Your first patch was identical to what I already have, so I dropped that.
Thank you for your advice. I will re-create an additional patch against recent -mm tree.
> Your second patch made these changes: > > --- devel/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c~kprobe-kprobe-booster-against-2616-rc5-for 2006-02-27 18:40:29.000000000 -0800 > +++ devel-akpm/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c 2006-02-27 18:40:57.000000000 -0800 > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int __kprobes kprobe_handler(stru > > if (p->ainsn.boostable == 1 && > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT > - !(pre_preempt_count) && /* > + !(pre_preempt_count()) && /* > * This enables booster when the direct > * execution path aren't preempted. > */ > @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static int __kprobes kprobe_handler(stru > !p->post_handler && !p->break_handler ) { > /* Boost up -- we can execute copied instructions directly */ > reset_current_kprobe(); > - regs->eip = (unsigned long)&p->ainsn.insn; > + regs->eip = (unsigned long)p->ainsn.insn; > preempt_enable_no_resched(); > return 1; > } > > The first hunk is surely wrong - pre_preempt_count is a local unsigned > integer, not a function.
I'm sorry. It's my fault. The first hunk is just a degradation.
> And I'm not sure about the second hunk either - surely an `eip' should > point at an instruction, not be assigned the value of an instruction?
This change is important. Because NX-protection support patch makes the ainsn.insn a pointer instead of a data structure, so now (&p->ainsn.insn) means just an address of the pointer -- not the instruction address.
> So I'll drop both patches. If you have bugfixes, please make them relative > to already-merged things. Against most-recent -mm is best, as I do fix > patches up, and other people send fixes which you might not have merged > locally. And please ensure that the changes compile and run with and > without CONFIG_PREEMPT!
OK. I will get the latest -mm tree and test it. And I will re-send the patch ASAP.
-- Masami HIRAMATSU 2nd Research Dept. Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory E-mail: hiramatu@sdl.hitachi.co.jp
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |