Re: [PATCH 1/4] uprobes: Kill set_swbp()->is_swbp_at_addr()

[Srikar Dronamraju]

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> [2012-09-23 22:19:45]:

> A separate patch for better documentation.
> 
> set_swbp()->is_swbp_at_addr() is not needed for correctness, it is
> harmless to do the unnecessary __replace_page(old_page, new_page)
> when these 2 pages are identical.
> 
> And it can not be counted as optimization. mmap/register races are
> very unlikely, while in the likely case is_swbp_at_addr() adds the
> extra get_user_pages() even if the caller is uprobe_mmap(current->mm)
> and returns false.
> 
> Note also that the semantics/usage of is_swbp_at_addr() in uprobe.c
> is confusing. set_swbp() uses it to detect the case when this insn
> was already modified by uprobes, that is why it should always compare
> the opcode with UPROBE_SWBP_INSN even if the hardware (like powerpc)
> has other trap insns. It doesn't matter if this "int3" was in fact
> installed by gdb or application itself, we are going to "steal" this
> breakpoint anyway and execute the original insn from vm_file even if
> it no longer matches the memory.
> 
> OTOH, handle_swbp()->find_active_uprobe() uses is_swbp_at_addr() to
> figure out whether we need to send SIGTRAP or not if we can not find
> uprobe, so in this case it should return true for all trap variants,
> not only for UPROBE_SWBP_INSN.
> 
> This patch removes set_swbp()->is_swbp_at_addr(), the next patches
> will remove it from set_orig_insn() which is similar to set_swbp()
> in this respect. So the only caller will be handle_swbp() and we
> can make its semantics clear.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

--
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/