On Thu, 31 May 2018 15:39:03 +0530 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 18:06:02 +0530 > > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> We already have an arch-independent way to set the instruction pointer > >> with instruction_pointer_set(). Using this allows us to get rid of the > >> need for override_function_with_return() that each architecture has to > >> implement. > >> > >> Furthermore, just_return_func() only has to encode arch-specific > >> assembly instructions to return from a function. Introduce a macro > >> ARCH_FUNC_RET to provide the arch-specific instruction and move over > >> just_return_func() to generic code. > >> > >> With these changes, architectures that already support kprobes, only > >> just need to ensure they provide regs_set_return_value(), GET_IP() (for > >> instruction_pointer_set()), and ARCH_FUNC_RET to support error > >> injection. > > > > Nice! the code basically good to me. Just one comment, ARCH_FUNC_RET sounds > > like a function. Maybe ARCH_RETURN_INSTRUCTION will be better name, isn't > > it? :) > > Sure -- I thought of writing ARCH_FUNCTION_RETURN, but felt that was too > verbose. How about ARCH_FUNC_RET_INST? It is OK if we can recognize it is an instruction. Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org>