Re: [BUGFIX PATCH V2 0/3] kprobes/arm: Improve kprobes implementation on arm
From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Fri Feb 17 2017 - 16:44:12 EST
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:01:10 +0000
"Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 09:27 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Here is the 2nd version of the patches which improve kprobe
> > on arm implementation (a kind of bugfix). Version 1 is here;
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/13/538
> > In this version I didn't update the code, just update the
> > patch description according to Tixy's comment and add his Ack.
> > Thank you,
> > ---
> > Masami Hiramatsu (3):
> > kprobes/arm: Allow to handle reentered kprobe on single-stepping
> > kprobes/arm: Skip single-stepping in recursing path if possible
> > kprobes/arm: Fix the return address of multiple kretprobes
> Thanks for doing these. Am I correct in assuming we don't need to
> consider these fixes urgent or critical? Only the first looks like it
> could be serious, and the x86 fix for that is 3 years old and ARM has
> gone without it all this time. So I'm guessing it's fine to wait for the
> normal development process and deal with it after the about to open
> merge window is completed?
Agreed. I'm not sure how frequently FIQ is used in ARM, but anyway
it happens only when root user intensively uses kprobes on FIQ handlers.
> If so, I propose that I put the patches in a branch for Russell to pull
> later (unless he pipes up with objections or says otherwise). Meantime
> I'll investigate the kprobes test failures I see (which actually looks
> like cache/TLB issues and not test code problems after all).
OK, btw, I couldn't reproduce the kprobes test failure with
CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA=y on qemu...
> BTW, I added theÂARM kernel list to the CC. I spotted you didn't add it
> to you patch postings, which means people interested in ARM (other than
> Russell) wouldn't have seen them.
Ah, I forgot that, Thank you!
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>