(2014/08/06 15:24), Wang Nan wrote:
>>> +
>>> +static void
>>> +optimized_callback(struct optimized_kprobe *op, struct pt_regs *regs)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> + regs->ARM_pc = (unsigned long)op->kp.addr;
>>> + regs->ARM_ORIG_r0 = ~0UL;
>>> +
>>> +
>>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>>> + /*
>>> + * This is possible if op is under delayed unoptimizing.
>>> + * We need simulate the replaced instruction.
>>> + */
>>> + if (kprobe_disabled(&op->kp)) {
>>> + struct kprobe *p = &op->kp;
>>> + op->kp.ainsn.insn_singlestep(p->opcode, &p->ainsn, regs);
>>> + } else {
>>> + kprobe_handler(regs);
>>> + }
>>
>> You don't need brace "{}" for one statement.
>> By the way, why don't you call opt_pre_handler()?
>>
>
> I use kprobe_handler because it handles instruction emulation.
>
> In addition, I'm not very sure whether skipping the complex checks
> in kprobe_handler() is safe or not.
That seems to do same thing on x86. Then you should do something like
the optimized_callback() on x86 as below.
static void
optimized_callback(struct optimized_kprobe *op, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb = get_kprobe_ctlblk();
unsigned long flags;
local_irq_save(flags);
if (kprobe_running()) {
kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(&op->kp);
} else {
/* Save skipped registers */
regs->ARM_pc = (unsigned long)op->kp.addr;
regs->ARM_ORIG_r0 = ~0UL;
__this_cpu_write(current_kprobe, &op->kp);
kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_HIT_ACTIVE;
opt_pre_handler(&op->kp, regs);
__this_cpu_write(current_kprobe, NULL);
op->kp.ainsn.insn_singlestep(op->kp.opcode, &op->kp.ainsn,
regs);
}
local_irq_restore(flags);
}
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: [email protected]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
