Re: [RFC 3/8] Kernel/uprobe: Define arch_uprobe_exception_notify as __weak

[Pratyush Anand]

On Friday 02 January 2015 11:13 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/31, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> > Both ARM and ARM64 handle uprobe exceptions through their own hooks.So
> > nothing to be done in arch_uprobe_exception_notify except to return
> > NOTIFY_DONE. Implement this as weak default function and remove
> > definition from arm arch code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pratyush Anand <panand@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm/kernel/uprobes.c |  6 ------
> >   kernel/events/uprobes.c   | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/arm/kernel/uprobes.c
> > index 56adf9c1fde0..0f3663ca82fc 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/uprobes.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/uprobes.c
> > @@ -178,12 +178,6 @@ void arch_uprobe_abort_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> >   	instruction_pointer_set(regs, utask->vaddr);
> >   }
> >
> > -int arch_uprobe_exception_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
> > -				 unsigned long val, void *data)
> > -{
> > -	return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > -}
>
> I agree, this is ugly. But I disagree with this change.
>
> I think we should simply kill uprobe_exception_nb and unexport
> arch_uprobe_exception_notify on x86/powerpc, and in fact I was going to do
> this a long ago.
>
> I'll send the patch later. Until then please add the dummy arch_uprobe_exception_notify()
> like arch/arm does, to make the generic code happy.

OK.

~Pratyush
> Oleg.
--
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/