Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] jump label v4 - x86: Introduce generic jump patchingwithout stop_machine

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/18/2010 12:53 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> This is utter and complete nonsense.   You seem to think that everything
>> is guaranteed to hit the breakpoint, which is obviously false.
>> Furthermore, until you have done the serialization, you're not
>> guaranteed the *breakpoint* is seen, so you have the same condition.
> 
> In that time frame, I guess that the processor sees non-modified
> instruction and executes it. Since we'll wait until serializing on
> each processor, I think it is OK for int3-bypass method.
> 
> (Of course, this can depend on chip, it is possible that there is a chip
>  which causes a fault when it has a cache-discarding signal on current-
>  instruction decoding slot. That's also why we are asking this method
>  is OK for x86 processors.)
> 

Yes, it is possible, however, if that was the case, then int3 wouldn't
work either.  As I said, to the best of our knowledge, at least Intel
processors are okay for a single-byte update (I will wait to try to
state the full general rule until it has been officially approved or
killed.)

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/