On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 18:44 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
> Do you mean we should push the original pt_regs (or that whole exception
> stack)
> downwards the location the new r1 point? Then its safe to perform this real
> emulated stw instruction. At last we will reroute r1 to that copied exception
>
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:06 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
>
>>> - Copy the exception frame we're about to unwind to just -below- the
>>> new r1 value we want to write to. Then perform the write, and change
>>> r1 to point to that copy of the frame.
>>>
>>> - Branch to
On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 19:06 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
> > - Copy the exception frame we're about to unwind to just -below- the
> > new r1 value we want to write to. Then perform the write, and change
> > r1 to point to that copy of the frame.
> >
> > - Branch to restore: which will unwind every
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 18:03 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
>> Here emulate_step() is called to emulate 'stwu'. Actually this is equivalent
>> to
>> 1> update pr_regs->gpr[1] = mem(old r1 + (-A))
>> 2> 'stw , mem<(old r1 + (-A)) >
>>
>> You should notice the stack based o
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 18:03 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
>
> Here emulate_step() is called to emulate 'stwu'. Actually this is equivalent
> to
> 1> update pr_regs->gpr[1] = mem(old r1 + (-A))
> 2> 'stw , mem<(old r1 + (-A)) >
>
> You should notice the stack based on new r1 would be covered with mem
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:03 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>> root@unknown:/root> insmod kprobe_example.ko func=show_interrupts
>> Planted kprobe at c009be18
>> root@unknown:/root> cat /proc/interrupts
>> pre_handler: p->addr = 0xc009be18, nip = 0xc009be18, msr = 0x29000
>> post_handler: p->addr = 0xc009b
Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I use kpr
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
wrote:
>
> Certain functions are off limits for probing -- look for __kprobe
Yup.
> annotations in the kernel. Some such functions are arch specific, but
> show_interrupts() would definitely not be one of them. It works fine on
> my (64
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:23:28PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zha
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
wrote:
>
> My access to a 32bit powerpc box is very limited. Also, embedded powerpc
> has had issues with gcc-4.6 while gcc-4.5 worked fine.
I think I can do some test if you have any ideas :)
>
>> > > I'm not sure if x86 had a similar
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> When I use kprobe to do something, I f
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 16:11 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> My access to a 32bit powerpc box is very limited. Also, embedded powerpc
> has had issues with gcc-4.6 while gcc-4.5 worked fine.
I'd work to debug this too, but I don't have access to a 32bit ppc
either. Although I've been to
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:31:05PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> When I use kprobe to do s
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:47:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> When I use kprobe to do something, I found some wired thing.
> >>
> >> When CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER is disabled:
>
(2011/06/24 19:29), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When I use kprobe to do something, I found some wired thing.
>>
>> When CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER is disabled:
>> (gdb) disassemble do_fork
>> Dump of assembler code for function do_fork:
>>
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I use kprobe to do something, I found some wired thing.
>
> When CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER is disabled:
> (gdb) disassemble do_fork
> Dump of assembler code for function do_fork:
>0xc0037390 <+0>: mflrr0
>0xc0037394 <+
16 matches
Mail list logo
