Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:42:50 +0000 | From | "Naveen N. Rao" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] powerpc: kprobes: emulate instructions on kprobe handler re-entry |
| |
Excerpts from Masami Hiramatsu's message of April 19, 2017 20:13: > > BTW, as I pointed, 5/7 and 6/7 should be merged since this actually > makes meaningful change.
Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous reply in the (!) previous patch series.
Since this has to go through the powerpc tree, I followed this since I felt that Michael Ellerman prefers to keep functional changes separate from refactoring. I'm fine with either approach.
Michael?
Thanks! - Naveen
> > Thank you, > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:21:05 +0530 > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> On kprobe handler re-entry, try to emulate the instruction rather than >> single stepping always. >> >> Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c >> index 46e8c1e03ce4..067e9863bfdf 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c >> @@ -276,6 +276,14 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) >> kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p); >> prepare_singlestep(p, regs); >> kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_REENTER; >> + if (p->ainsn.boostable >= 0) { >> + ret = try_to_emulate(p, regs); >> + >> + if (ret > 0) { >> + restore_previous_kprobe(kcb); >> + return 1; >> + } >> + } >> return 1; >> } else { >> if (*addr != BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) { >> -- >> 2.12.1 >> > > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> > >
| |