Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] jump label v4 - x86: Introduce generic jump patchingwithout stop_machine
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Mon Jan 18 2010 - 16:22:35 EST
On 01/18/2010 12:53 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> This is utter and complete nonsense. You seem to think that everything
>> is guaranteed to hit the breakpoint, which is obviously false.
>> Furthermore, until you have done the serialization, you're not
>> guaranteed the *breakpoint* is seen, so you have the same condition.
> In that time frame, I guess that the processor sees non-modified
> instruction and executes it. Since we'll wait until serializing on
> each processor, I think it is OK for int3-bypass method.
> (Of course, this can depend on chip, it is possible that there is a chip
> which causes a fault when it has a cache-discarding signal on current-
> instruction decoding slot. That's also why we are asking this method
> is OK for x86 processors.)
Yes, it is possible, however, if that was the case, then int3 wouldn't
work either. As I said, to the best of our knowledge, at least Intel
processors are okay for a single-byte update (I will wait to try to
state the full general rule until it has been officially approved or
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/