lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] uprobes: install_breakpoint() should fail if is_swbp_insn() == T
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/events/uprobes.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > index 8c5e043..1593b43 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > @@ -704,7 +704,7 @@ install_breakpoint(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > return ret;
> >
> > if (is_swbp_insn((uprobe_opcode_t *)uprobe->arch.insn))
> > - return -EEXIST;
> > + return -ENOTSUPP;
> >
> > ret = arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(&uprobe->arch, mm);
> > if (ret)
>
> IIRC this -EEXIST existed because the vma iteration it does is racy and
> one can encounter the same vma twice or so. See the special -EEXIST
> handling in register_for_each_vma().
>
> Changing it like this would break stuff.
>

Peter,

is_swbp_insn() is looking at the copy of the instruction thats read from
the file. This path is only taken even before any mm's are inserted with
the breakpoint instruction.

We still check and return -EEXIST if the memory while inserting the breakpoint
instruction already has a breakpoint.

Hence this change is correct.

--
thanks and regards
Srikar



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-30 20:01    [W:0.138 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site