(2014/08/01 20:00), Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> wrote: > >> Skip kretprobe hit in NMI context, because if an NMI happens >> inside the critical section protected by kretprobe_table.lock >> and another(or same) kretprobe hit, pre_kretprobe_handler >> tries to lock kretprobe_table.lock again. >> Normal interrupts have no problem because they are disabled >> with the lock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com> >> Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ana...@in.ibm.com> >> Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net> >> --- >> kernel/kprobes.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c >> index 734e9a7..a537029 100644 >> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c >> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c >> @@ -1778,6 +1778,12 @@ static int pre_handler_kretprobe(struct kprobe *p, >> struct pt_regs *regs) >> unsigned long hash, flags = 0; >> struct kretprobe_instance *ri; >> >> + /* To avoid deadlock, prohibit return probing in NMI context */ >> + if (in_nmi()) { > > Should be unlikely()?
Ah, Indeed. > >> + rp->nmissed++; >> + return 0; > > In another place in this function we do: > > } else { > rp->nmissed++; > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rp->lock, flags); > } > > Is it safe to modify rp-> without locking? Yes, rp->nmissed is just for noticing the fault to users, not for controlling.:) If we need more accurate value, we'd better make it atomic_t. Thank you, > >> + } >> + >> /*TODO: consider to only swap the RA after the last pre_handler fired */ > > Nit: That comment is oddly formatted. > > Thanks, > > Ingo > -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/