Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] x86/uprobes: implement x86 specificarch_uprobe_*_step

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/09, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> v1..v2: re-use auprobe->fixups for fixups

Yes, but

> @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ struct arch_uprobe_task {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>  	unsigned long			saved_scratch_register;
>  #endif
> +#define UPROBE_CLEAR_TF			(1 << 0)
> +	unsigned int			restore_flags;
>  };

this patch still adds restore_flags into arch_uprobe_task.

>  static void prepare_fixups(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct insn *insn)
>  {
> -	bool fix_ip = true, fix_call = false;	/* defaults */
> +	bool fix_ip = true, fix_call = false, fix_tf = false;	/* defaults */
>  	int reg;
>  
>  	insn_get_opcode(insn);	/* should be a nop */
>  
>  	switch (OPCODE1(insn)) {
> +	case 0x9d:
> +		/* popf */
> +		fix_tf = true;
> +		break;
>  	case 0xc3:		/* ret/lret */
>  	case 0xcb:
>  	case 0xc2:
> @@ -277,6 +284,8 @@ static void prepare_fixups(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct insn *insn)
>  		auprobe->fixups |= UPROBE_FIX_IP;
>  	if (fix_call)
>  		auprobe->fixups |= UPROBE_FIX_CALL;
> +	if (fix_tf)
> +		auprobe->fixups |= UPROBE_TF_CHANGES;
>  }

I won't insist, but do we really need fix_tf? "case 0x9d" could simply
add UPROBE_TF_CHANGES.

Oleg.

--
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/