[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [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

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Long" <>
To: "Oleg Nesterov" <>
Cc:, "Rabin Vincent" <>, "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <>, "Srikar Dronamraju" <>, "Ingo Molnar" <>,
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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-22 13:41    [W:0.100 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site