On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:01:10 +0000 "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <t...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 09:27 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Here is the 2nd version of the patches which improve kprobe > > on arm implementation (a kind of bugfix). Version 1 is here; > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/13/538 > > > > In this version I didn't update the code, just update the > > patch description according to Tixy's comment and add his Ack. > > > > Thank you, > > > > --- > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (3): > > kprobes/arm: Allow to handle reentered kprobe on single-stepping > > kprobes/arm: Skip single-stepping in recursing path if possible > > kprobes/arm: Fix the return address of multiple kretprobes > > > > Thanks for doing these. Am I correct in assuming we don't need to > consider these fixes urgent or critical? Only the first looks like it > could be serious, and the x86 fix for that is 3 years old and ARM has > gone without it all this time. So I'm guessing it's fine to wait for the > normal development process and deal with it after the about to open > merge window is completed? Agreed. I'm not sure how frequently FIQ is used in ARM, but anyway it happens only when root user intensively uses kprobes on FIQ handlers. > If so, I propose that I put the patches in a branch for Russell to pull > later (unless he pipes up with objections or says otherwise). Meantime > I'll investigate the kprobes test failures I see (which actually looks > like cache/TLB issues and not test code problems after all). OK, btw, I couldn't reproduce the kprobes test failure with CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA=y on qemu... > > BTW, I added the ARM kernel list to the CC. I spotted you didn't add it > to you patch postings, which means people interested in ARM (other than > Russell) wouldn't have seen them. Ah, I forgot that, Thank you! > > Thanks > > -- > Tixy -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org>
