Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
Hi Ingo, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> - return 1; >>> + ret = 1; >> Here, "return 1;" is correct. After single step is done, preemption is >> enabled in post_kprobe_handler(). > > could you resend the fixed patch? (instead of me fixing it up by hand - > which is error-prone) Sure, I'll resend asap. > > also, this seems like .24 material as well - could you send the fix > against -rc5 too? -rc tree is fine. Actually, it was introduced by my cleanup patch. Thanks! > > Ingo -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
* Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - return 1; > > + ret = 1; > > Here, "return 1;" is correct. After single step is done, preemption is > enabled in post_kprobe_handler(). could you resend the fixed patch? (instead of me fixing it up by hand - which is error-prone) also, this seems like .24 material as well - could you send the fix against -rc5 too? Ingo -- 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
* Masami Hiramatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - return 1; + ret = 1; Here, return 1; is correct. After single step is done, preemption is enabled in post_kprobe_handler(). could you resend the fixed patch? (instead of me fixing it up by hand - which is error-prone) also, this seems like .24 material as well - could you send the fix against -rc5 too? Ingo -- 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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
Hi Ingo, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Masami Hiramatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - return 1; + ret = 1; Here, return 1; is correct. After single step is done, preemption is enabled in post_kprobe_handler(). could you resend the fixed patch? (instead of me fixing it up by hand - which is error-prone) Sure, I'll resend asap. also, this seems like .24 material as well - could you send the fix against -rc5 too? -rc tree is fine. Actually, it was introduced by my cleanup patch. Thanks! Ingo -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
Hi
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Fix a preemption bug in kprobe_handler(). It has to call preempt_enable()
> before returning.
> I think this is critical on preemptive kernel.
Sorry, this patch has a mistake.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c |5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> ===
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:51:00.0 -0500
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:53:38.0 -0500
> @@ -467,7 +467,8 @@
> arch_disarm_kprobe(p);
> regs->ip = (unsigned long)p->addr;
> reset_current_kprobe();
> - return 1;
> + ret = 1;
> + goto no_kprobe;
> #endif
> }
> /* We have reentered the kprobe_handler(), since
> @@ -481,7 +482,7 @@
> kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p);
> prepare_singlestep(p, regs);
> kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_REENTER;
> - return 1;
> + ret = 1;
Here, "return 1;" is correct. After single step is done, preemption is enabled
in post_kprobe_handler().
> } else {
> if (*addr != BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) {
> /* The breakpoint instruction was removed by
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [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/
[PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
Fix a preemption bug in kprobe_handler(). It has to call preempt_enable()
before returning.
I think this is critical on preemptive kernel.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c |5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
===
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:51:00.0 -0500
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:53:38.0 -0500
@@ -467,7 +467,8 @@
arch_disarm_kprobe(p);
regs->ip = (unsigned long)p->addr;
reset_current_kprobe();
- return 1;
+ ret = 1;
+ goto no_kprobe;
#endif
}
/* We have reentered the kprobe_handler(), since
@@ -481,7 +482,7 @@
kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p);
prepare_singlestep(p, regs);
kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_REENTER;
- return 1;
+ ret = 1;
} else {
if (*addr != BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) {
/* The breakpoint instruction was removed by
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [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/
[PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
Fix a preemption bug in kprobe_handler(). It has to call preempt_enable()
before returning.
I think this is critical on preemptive kernel.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c |5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
===
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:51:00.0 -0500
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:53:38.0 -0500
@@ -467,7 +467,8 @@
arch_disarm_kprobe(p);
regs-ip = (unsigned long)p-addr;
reset_current_kprobe();
- return 1;
+ ret = 1;
+ goto no_kprobe;
#endif
}
/* We have reentered the kprobe_handler(), since
@@ -481,7 +482,7 @@
kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p);
prepare_singlestep(p, regs);
kcb-kprobe_status = KPROBE_REENTER;
- return 1;
+ ret = 1;
} else {
if (*addr != BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) {
/* The breakpoint instruction was removed by
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: fix kprobe_handler reenable preemption
Hi
Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Fix a preemption bug in kprobe_handler(). It has to call preempt_enable()
before returning.
I think this is critical on preemptive kernel.
Sorry, this patch has a mistake.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c |5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
===
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:51:00.0 -0500
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c 2007-12-18 12:53:38.0 -0500
@@ -467,7 +467,8 @@
arch_disarm_kprobe(p);
regs-ip = (unsigned long)p-addr;
reset_current_kprobe();
- return 1;
+ ret = 1;
+ goto no_kprobe;
#endif
}
/* We have reentered the kprobe_handler(), since
@@ -481,7 +482,7 @@
kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p);
prepare_singlestep(p, regs);
kcb-kprobe_status = KPROBE_REENTER;
- return 1;
+ ret = 1;
Here, return 1; is correct. After single step is done, preemption is enabled
in post_kprobe_handler().
} else {
if (*addr != BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) {
/* The breakpoint instruction was removed by
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [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/
