On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 09:33:28PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > I never tested the 32 bit version of this. And we could just not
> > implement it (I don't think there's live kernel patching for it
> > either).
>
> That's correct, there is no livepatc
On Wed, 1 May 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I never tested the 32 bit version of this. And we could just not
> implement it (I don't think there's live kernel patching for it
> either).
That's correct, there is no livepatching on x86_32 (and no plans for
it). CONFIG_LIVEPATCH is not available fo
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 12:03:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:11 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Here goes, compile tested only...
>
> Ugh, two different threads. This has the same bug (same source) as the
> one Steven posted:
This is what Steve started from; lets c
On Wed, 1 May 2019 12:03:52 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:11 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Here goes, compile tested only...
>
> Ugh, two different threads. This has the same bug (same source) as the
> one Steven posted:
>
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> > +
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:11 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Here goes, compile tested only...
Ugh, two different threads. This has the same bug (same source) as the
one Steven posted:
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> @@ -1479,6 +1479,13 @@ ENTRY(int3)
>
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 02:58:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > + if (ftrace_location(ip)) {
> > + int3_emulate_call(regs, ftrace_update_func_call);
>
> Should be:
>
> int3_emulate_call(regs, (unsigned long)ftrace_regs_caller);
Ah, I lost the plot a little there.
>
On Wed, 1 May 2019 15:11:17 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:33:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Anyway, since Andy really likes the entry code change, can we have
> > that patch in parallel and judge the difference that way? Iirc, that
> > was x86-64 specific too.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:33:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, since Andy really likes the entry code change, can we have
> that patch in parallel and judge the difference that way? Iirc, that
> was x86-64 specific too.
Here goes, compile tested only...
It obviously needs a self-test,
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:33:21 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > + "ftrace_emulate_call_update_irqoff:\n\t"
> > + "push %gs:ftrace_bp_call_return\n\t"
> > + "sti\n\t"
> > + "jmp *ftrace_update_func_call\n"
>
> .. and this should then use the "push pu
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:33:21 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:49 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > +
> > +asm(
> > + ".text\n"
> > +
> > + /* Trampoline for function update with interrupts enabled */
> > + ".global ftrace_emulate_call_irqoff\n"
> > +
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:49 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> +
> +asm(
> + ".text\n"
> +
> + /* Trampoline for function update with interrupts enabled */
> + ".global ftrace_emulate_call_irqoff\n"
> + ".type ftrace_emulate_call_irqoff, @function\n"
> + "ftrace_emulate_c
11 matches
Mail list logo
