On 08/09, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> v1..v2: re-use auprobe->fixups for fixups
Yes, but
> @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ struct arch_uprobe_task {
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> unsigned long saved_scratch_register;
> #endif
> +#define UPROBE_CLEAR_TF (1 << 0)
> + unsigned int restore_flags;
> };
this patch still adds restore_flags into arch_uprobe_task.
> static void prepare_fixups(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct insn *insn)
> {
> - bool fix_ip = true, fix_call = false; /* defaults */
> + bool fix_ip = true, fix_call = false, fix_tf = false; /* defaults */
> int reg;
>
> insn_get_opcode(insn); /* should be a nop */
>
> switch (OPCODE1(insn)) {
> + case 0x9d:
> + /* popf */
> + fix_tf = true;
> + break;
> case 0xc3: /* ret/lret */
> case 0xcb:
> case 0xc2:
> @@ -277,6 +284,8 @@ static void prepare_fixups(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe,
> struct insn *insn)
> auprobe->fixups |= UPROBE_FIX_IP;
> if (fix_call)
> auprobe->fixups |= UPROBE_FIX_CALL;
> + if (fix_tf)
> + auprobe->fixups |= UPROBE_TF_CHANGES;
> }
I won't insist, but do we really need fix_tf? "case 0x9d" could simply
add UPROBE_TF_CHANGES.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
