Re: [RFC Patch 2/2][Bugfix][x86][hw-breakpoint] Fix return-code tonotifier chain in hw_breakpoint_handler

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 03:58:26PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:11:04PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Is that < TASK_SIZE an accurate check? We want support for
> > userspace breakpoints on perf tools later, and those don't want
> > signals.
> > 
> 
> Well, signal generation for user-space breakpoints happened
> unconditionally for 'historical' reasons (guess that Alan Stern's
> original patch had it that way).
> 
> We could change that into a 'ptrace-only' signal generation now.



Yeah, now that we can have multiple-purpose concurrent breakpoints,
this is necessary.


 
> > We do this cleanup in the beginning of the breakpoint handler:
> > 
> > 	current->thread.debugreg6 &= ~DR_TRAP_BITS;
> > 
> > And from ptrace.c:ptrace_triggered():
> > 
> > 	thread->debugreg6 |= (DR_TRAP0 << i);
> > 
> > This is called on perf_bp_event().
> > Instead of checking if this is a userspace thread, we should actually
> > check if this is a ptrace breakpoint by looking at this
> > in the end of hw_breakpoint_handler().
> > 
> > 	current->thread.debugreg6 & DR_TRAP_BITS
> > 
> > Only ptrace breakpoints require signals.
> >
> 
> Yes, this does look like a clean way to limit signals to those requests
> that are interested (I was looking at round-about ways like doing a
> lookup based on callback functions).
> 
> I will send the next version of the patch with the above changes.


Thanks.

--
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/