Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/7] UBP, XOL and Uprobes [ Summary of Commentsand actions to be taken ]

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 07:53 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 12:54 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:32:32PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Here is a summary of the Comments and actions that need to be taken for
> > > the current uprobes patchset. Please let me know if I missed or
> > > misunderstood any of your comments.  
> > > 
> > > 1. Uprobes depends on trap signal.
> > > 	Uprobes depends on trap signal rather than hooking to the global
> > > die notifier. It was suggested that we hook to the global die notifier.
> > > 
> > > 	In the next version of patches, Uprobes will use the global die
> > > 	notifier and look at the per-task count of the probes in use to
> > > 	see if it has to be consumed.
> > > 
> > > 	However this would reduce the ability of uprobe handlers to
> > > 	sleep. Since we are dealing with userspace, sleeping in handlers
> > > 	would have been a good feature. We are looking at ways to get
> > > 	around this limitation.
> > 
> > We could set a TIF_ flag in the notifier to indicate a breakpoint hit
> > and process it in task context before the task heads into userspace.
> 
> OK, so we can go play stack games in the INT3 interrupt handler by
> moving to a non IST stack when it comes from userspace, or move kprobes
> over to INT1 or something.

Right, it just got pointed out that INT1 doesn't have a single byte
encoding, only INT0 and INT3 :/

--
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/