On 10/21, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > If it is not clear, abort_xol() is needed when we should
> > re-execute the original insn (replaced with int3), see the
> > next patch.
>
> We should be removing the breakpoint in abort_xol().
Why? See also below.
> Otherwise if we just set the instruction pointer to int3 and signal a
> sigill, then the user may be confused why a breakpoint is generating
> SIGILL.
Which user?
gdb? Of course it can be confused. But it can be confused in any case.
> > +void abort_xol(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + // !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > + // !!! Dear Srikar and Ananth, please implement me !!!
> > + // !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > + struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
> > + regs->ip = utask->vaddr;
>
> nit:
> Shouldnt we be setting the ip to the next instruction after this
> instruction?
Not sure...
We should restart the same insn. Say, if the probed insn
was "*(int*)0 = 0", it should be executed again after SIGSEGV. Unless
the task was killed by this signal.
And in this case we should call uprobe_consumer()->handler() again,
we shouldn't remove "int3".
> I have applied all your patches and ran tests, the tests are all
> passing.
>
> I will fold them into my patches and send them out.
Great, thanks.
Oleg.
--
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>