On 04/13, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > > Oh yes, this should be documented more explicitly in the changelog of
> > > this patch or 7/9 (which tries to document the limitations but should
> > > be more clear).
> > >
> > > Currently we do not support longjmp() and we assume that the probed
> > >
* Oleg Nesterov [2013-04-09 22:13:02]:
> On 04/09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > Should we a check here before using top most ri.
> > > What if the application had done a longjmp and the trampoline he hit
> > > corresponds to something thats below in the stack?
> > >
> > > Not sure if this what
* Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com [2013-04-09 22:13:02]:
On 04/09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Should we a check here before using top most ri.
What if the application had done a longjmp and the trampoline he hit
corresponds to something thats below in the stack?
Not sure if this what
On 04/13, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
Oh yes, this should be documented more explicitly in the changelog of
this patch or 7/9 (which tries to document the limitations but should
be more clear).
Currently we do not support longjmp() and we assume that the probed
function should do
On 04/09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Should we a check here before using top most ri.
> > What if the application had done a longjmp and the trampoline he hit
> > corresponds to something thats below in the stack?
> >
> > Not sure if this what you meant by leaking return instances in your next
> >
On 04/07, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > +static void
> > +handler_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe = ri->uprobe;
> > + struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
> > +
> > + down_read(>register_rwsem);
> > + for (uc =
On 04/07, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
+static void
+handler_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ struct uprobe *uprobe = ri-uprobe;
+ struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
+
+ down_read(uprobe-register_rwsem);
+ for (uc = uprobe-consumers; uc; uc =
On 04/09, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Should we a check here before using top most ri.
What if the application had done a longjmp and the trampoline he hit
corresponds to something thats below in the stack?
Not sure if this what you meant by leaking return instances in your next
patch.
Oh
* Anton Arapov [2013-04-03 18:00:36]:
> Uretprobe handlers are invoked when the trampoline is hit, on completion the
> trampoline is replaced with the saved return address and the uretprobe
> instance
> deleted.
>
> v1 changes:
> * pass bp_vaddr to ret_handler()
> * simplify handle_uretprobe()
* Anton Arapov an...@redhat.com [2013-04-03 18:00:36]:
Uretprobe handlers are invoked when the trampoline is hit, on completion the
trampoline is replaced with the saved return address and the uretprobe
instance
deleted.
v1 changes:
* pass bp_vaddr to ret_handler()
* simplify
Uretprobe handlers are invoked when the trampoline is hit, on completion the
trampoline is replaced with the saved return address and the uretprobe instance
deleted.
v1 changes:
* pass bp_vaddr to ret_handler()
* simplify handle_uretprobe()
RFCv6 changes:
* rework handle_uretprobe()
RFCv5
Uretprobe handlers are invoked when the trampoline is hit, on completion the
trampoline is replaced with the saved return address and the uretprobe instance
deleted.
v1 changes:
* pass bp_vaddr to ret_handler()
* simplify handle_uretprobe()
RFCv6 changes:
* rework handle_uretprobe()
RFCv5
12 matches
Mail list logo