* Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that the patch is in mainline (commit
> c80e5c0c23ce2282476fdc64c4b5e3d3a40723fd) and kernel 4.1-rc1 is out, do you
> mind if I send the backports of that patch to -stable?
No objections from me!
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
* Eugene Shatokhin eugene.shatok...@rosalab.ru wrote:
Hi,
Now that the patch is in mainline (commit
c80e5c0c23ce2282476fdc64c4b5e3d3a40723fd) and kernel 4.1-rc1 is out, do you
mind if I send the backports of that patch to -stable?
No objections from me!
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To
Hi,
Now that the patch is in mainline (commit
c80e5c0c23ce2282476fdc64c4b5e3d3a40723fd) and kernel 4.1-rc1 is out, do
you mind if I send the backports of that patch to -stable?
Regards,
Eugene
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
Hi,
Now that the patch is in mainline (commit
c80e5c0c23ce2282476fdc64c4b5e3d3a40723fd) and kernel 4.1-rc1 is out, do
you mind if I send the backports of that patch to -stable?
Regards,
Eugene
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
(2015/03/17 0:03), Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
>> (2015/03/09 20:19), Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
>>> On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
>>> instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
>>> kernel_insn_init() is called the second
(2015/03/17 0:03), Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com wrote:
(2015/03/09 20:19), Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
kernel_insn_init() is
* Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2015/03/09 20:19), Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
> > On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
> > instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
> > kernel_insn_init() is called the second time for 'insn' instance
> > in such cases and
* Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com wrote:
(2015/03/09 20:19), Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
kernel_insn_init() is called the second time for 'insn' instance
(2015/03/09 20:19), Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
> On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
> instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
> kernel_insn_init() is called the second time for 'insn' instance
> in such cases and sets all its fields to 0.
>
> Because
On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
kernel_insn_init() is called the second time for 'insn' instance
in such cases and sets all its fields to 0.
Because of this, trying to place a Kprobe on such instruction
On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
kernel_insn_init() is called the second time for 'insn' instance
in such cases and sets all its fields to 0.
Because of this, trying to place a Kprobe on such instruction
(2015/03/09 20:19), Eugene Shatokhin wrote:
On x86-64, __copy_instruction() always returns 0 (error) if the
instruction uses %rip-relative addressing. This is because
kernel_insn_init() is called the second time for 'insn' instance
in such cases and sets all its fields to 0.
Because of
12 matches
Mail list logo