Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:17:39PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>> + while (addr < paddr) {
>>>> + kernel_insn_init(&insn, (void *)addr);
>>>> + insn_get_opcode(&insn);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Check if the instruction has been modified. */
>>>> + if (insn.opcode.bytes[0] == BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) {
>>>> + ret = recover_probed_instruction(buf, addr);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm confused about the reason of this recovering. Is it to remove
>>> kprobes behind the current setting one in the current function?
>>
>> No, it recovers just an instruction which is probed by a kprobe,
>> because we need to know the first byte of this instruction for
>> decoding it.
Ah, sorry, it was not accurate. the function recovers an instruction
on the buffer(buf), not on the real kernel text. :)
>>
>> Perhaps we'd better to have more generic interface (text_peek?)
>> for it because another subsystem (e.g. kgdb) may want to insert int3...
>>
>> Thank you,
>
>
> Aah, I see now, it's to keep a sane check of the instructions
> boundaries without int 3 artifacts in the middle.
>
> But in that case, you should re-arm the breakpoint after your
> check, right?
>
> Or may be you could do the check without repatching?
Yes, it doesn't modify kernel text, just recover an original
instruction from kernel text and backup byte on a buffer.
> May be by doing a copy of insn.opcode.bytes and replacing bytes[0]
> with what a random kprobe has stolen?
Hm, no, this function is protected from other kprobes by kprobe_mutex.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
