Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:25:51 -0400 (EDT) | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits |
| |
Sorry for top-posting/formatting,
Do you mean arch_uprobe_skip_sstep() ?
Yes, this __weak is wrong, already fixed in my tree. See http://marc.info/?l=linux-mips&m=138132052022388&w=2
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Long" <dave.long@linaro.org> To: "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Rabin Vincent" <rabin@rab.in>, "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@linaro.org>, "Srikar Dronamraju" <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sent: Tuesday, 22 October, 2013 5:45:47 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits
On 10/19/13 13:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/15, David Long wrote: >> >> @@ -1732,9 +1732,6 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs) >> return; >> } >> >> - /* change it in advance for ->handler() and restart */ >> - instruction_pointer_set(regs, bp_vaddr); >> - > > Well, this looks obviously wrong. This SET_IP() has the comment ;) > > Note also that with this breaks __skip_sstep() on x86. > > Oleg. >
Yes, and there's a missing weak stub function in there too. It was a surprise to me that declaring an external as weak means that it quietly ignores the fact there is no definition for it at link time, and makes it zero. I think there may be some similar land mines elsewhere in the kernel, unrelated to these changes or uprobes in general.
I have an updated version to go out with the v3 patches. It is working with v3.12-rc6 on x86 and ARM, to the extent I'm able to test it.
-dl
|  |