at 1:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:58:40PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: >>> With that CR3 trickery, we can rid ourselves of the text_mutex >>> requirement, since concurrent text_poke is 'safe'. That would clean up >>> the kgdb code quite a bit. >> >> I don’t know. I’m somewhat worried with multiple mechanisms potentially >> changing the same code at the same time - and maybe ending up with some >> mess. > > kgdb only pokes INT3, that should be pretty safe. Maybe I misunderstand your point. If you want me to get rid of text_mutex completely, I am afraid it will be able to cause mess by changing the same piece of code through kprobes and the static-keys mechanism. I doubt it would work today without failing, but getting rid of text_mutex is likely to make it even worse.
