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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:31 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> The current code assumes that one of the two code sequences is a NOP,
> and therefore that jumping over the region is legal.  This does not
> allow for transitioning one active code sequence to another.

Correct, and I think we should keep the two changes separate, as the NOP
case is trivial. No need to complicate the trivial and common updates
(jump_labels and ftrace). But for things like kprobes, we could do a bit
more complex code, but it should probably be separate.

Perhaps call this text_poke_nop_bp()?

-- Steve


--
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/