Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] uprobes: return probe implementation

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 01/09, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> There are RFC uretprobes implementation. I'd be grateful for review.
>
>   RFCv1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/21/133
>
> I've intentionally removed the retprobe bypass logic, it requires
> a bit more work.

Yes, this is not trivial, lets do this separately.

> not fixed since last prior RFC review:
>   unify xol_get_trampoline_slot() and xol_take_insn_slot()

This was of the reasons for "Do not play with utask in xol_get_insn_slot()"
I sent. After this patch you only need the trivial change

	- static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(struct uprobe *uprobe)
	+ static unsigned long xol_get_insn_slot(unsigned char *insn)

and now you do not need xol_get_trampoline_slot().

However. Why do you need it at all? Let me quote myself:

	Or. Perhaps even better, do not add this helper at all. xol_alloc_area()
	could reserve the first slot/bit for trampoline. And note that in this
	case we do not need xol_area->rp_trampoline_vaddr, it is always equal
	to xol_area->vaddr.

?

>   protect uprobe in prepare_uretprobe()

This should be fixed ;)

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/