Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:27:15 +0100 | From | Anton Arapov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] uprobes: add bp_vaddr argument to consumer handler |
| |
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 04:49:10PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 12/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Forgot to ask... > > > > On 12/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > On 12/21, Anton Arapov wrote: > > > > > > > > struct uprobe_consumer { > > > > - int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, struct pt_regs *regs); > > > > + int (*handler)(struct uprobe_consumer *self, unsigned long bp_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs); > > > > > > It seems that we can do better... > > > > > > Just change regs->ip before calling ->handler(). > > > > Josh, Frank, will it work for you? > > Wait, probably I was confused by this patch and 4/6... > > To simplify, lets ignore the normal uprobes. Yes I still think that it > would be better to set "regs->ip = orig_return_vaddr" before calling > ->handler() and not pass it as an argument. > > But, probably uprobe_consumer also needs to know bp_vaddr? IOW, the > address of the function which we are going to return from? In this case, > yes, we also need another argument. And prepare_uretprobe/etc should > be changed to record bp_vaddr passed from handle_swbp(). And > uretprobe_run_handlers() should pass this bp_vaddr, not orig_return_vaddr. > > Or I am confused. > > Anton?
Oleg, you are absolutely right and change the ip before calling the ->handle is much better then what I 'invented'.
I'm working on v2 to address this and other issues, will post it soon.
Anton.
|  |