Re: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instructionpatching

[Masami Hiramatsu]

(2013/07/11 6:36), H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 02:31 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>>
>> If any CPU instruction execution would collide with the patching,
>> it'd be trapped by the int3 breakpoint and redirected to the provided
>> "handler" (which would typically mean just skipping over the patched
>> region, acting as "nop" has been there, in case we are doing nop -> jump
>> and jump -> nop transitions).
>>
> 
> I'm wondering if it would be easier/more general to just return to the
> instruction.  The "more general" bit would allow this to be used for
> other things, like alternatives, and perhaps eventually dynamic call
> patching.
>
> Returning to the instruction will, in effect, be a busy-wait for the
> faulted CPU until the patch is complete; more or less what stop_machine
> would do, but only for a CPU which actually strays into the affected region.

Sounds a good idea :)
It may minimize the interface and the implementation will be
self-contained.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx


--
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/