Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Apr 2014 21:58:54 +0900 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] uprobes/x86: Introduce uprobe_xol_ops and arch_uprobe->ops |
| |
(2014/04/09 1:10), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/08, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> >> (2014/04/05 3:51), Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>> >>> TODO: An error from adjust_ret_addr() shouldn't be silently ignored, >>> we should teach arch_uprobe_post_xol() or handle_singlestep() paths >>> to restart the probed insn in this case. And probably "adjust" can >>> be simplified and turned into set_ret_addr(). It seems that we do >>> not really need copy_from_user(), we can always calculate the value >>> we need to write into *regs->sp. >> >> It seems that you fixed this in 8/9, we don't need the TODO list in >> the description. > > Well, OK, I'll update the changelog and remove the "error ... ignored" > part. Although to be honest, I do not understand why do you think it > is bad to document the other problems you found while you were writing > the patch.
Because you know how to fix that and you just can do that in following patches :). In that case, you don't need to state it here.
>>> + if (auprobe->ops->emulate) >>> + return auprobe->ops->emulate(auprobe, regs); >>> + >>> + /* TODO: move this code into ->emulate() hook */ >> >> If you think this can move into the emulate(), > > Yes sure, > >> you should do in this >> patch. > > No, sorry, I strongly disagree, this should come as a separate change, > and only after "Emulate jmp's".
Ah, I see, with your RFC series. :)
>> Since the following code runs by default, there should be >> no problem to do that. > > Hmm. Not sure I understand "by default".
I meant that the auprobe->ops->emulate() is always skipped and the old code is always run, since the default_emulate_op() is NULL at this point.
> If you meant that this should > go into default_emulate_op() (which we do not have), then I strongly > disagree again. > > It should not, if nothing else we need to record insn->length somewhere, > this should go into ttt_emulate_op() we add later. And it simply looks > much more natural to handle jmp's and nop's together.
I see, OK with ttt_emulate_op() series.
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Thank you :)
> > Masami, this time I simply can't understand your objections, please > clarify. > > Thanks, > > Oleg. > >
-- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
| |