On 10/21, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:12:07PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > > +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?
>
> No, since we should re-execute the original instruction
Yes,
> after removing
> the breakpoint.
No? we should not remove this uprobe?
> Also, wrt ip being set to the next instruction on a breakpoint hit,
> that's arch specific.
Probably yes, I am not sure. But:
> For instance, on x86, it points to the next
> instruction,
No?
/**
* get_uprobe_bkpt_addr - compute address of bkpt given post-bkpt regs
* @regs: Reflects the saved state of the task after it has hit a breakpoint
* instruction.
* Return the address of the breakpoint instruction.
*/
unsigned long __weak get_uprobe_bkpt_addr(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
return instruction_pointer(regs) - UPROBES_BKPT_INSN_SIZE;
}
Yes, initially regs->ip points to the next insn after int3, but
utask->vaddr == get_uprobe_bkpt_addr() == addr of int3.
Right?
> while on powerpc, the nip points to the breakpoint vaddr
> at the time of exception.
I think get_uprobe_bkpt_addr() should be consistent on every arch.
That is why (I think) it is __weak.
Anyway, abort_xol() has to be arch-specific.
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>