> > HOWEVER! I simply do not know what should we do if the probed insn
> > is something like asm("1:; jmp 1b;"). IIUC, in this sstep_complete()
> > never returns true. The patch also adds the fatal_signal_pending()
> > check to make this task killlable, but the problem is: whatever we do,
> > I do not think it is correct to disable/delay the signals in this case.
> > With any approach.
> >
> > What do you think? Maybe we should simply disallow to probe such insns?
>
> Or. Could you explain why we can't simply remove the
> "if (vaddr == current->utask->xol_vaddr)" check from sstep_complete() ?
Yes, we could remove the check and rely on just the DIE_DEBUG to say
that singlestep has occurred. This was mostly needed when we were not
handling signals on singlestep.
> In some sense, imho this looks more correct for "rep" or jmp/call self.
> The task will trap again on the same (original) address, and
> handler_chain() will be called to notify the consumers.
>
> But. I am really, really ignorant in this area, I am almost sure this
> is not that simple.
>
Thats being modest.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>