On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:21:12PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: ...
> > So, the arch agnostic code itself > > takes care of this case... > > Yes. I forgot about install_breakpoint()->is_swbp_insn() check which > returns -ENOTSUPP, somehow I thought arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() does > this. > > > or am I missing something? > > No, it is me. > > > However, I see that we need a powerpc specific is_swbp_insn() > > implementation since we will have to take care of all the trap variants. > > Hmm, I am not sure. is_swbp_insn(insn), as it is used in the arch agnostic > code, should only return true if insn == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN (just in case, > this logic needs more fixes but this is offtopic). I think it does... > If powerpc has another insn(s) which can trigger powerpc's do_int3() > counterpart, they should be rejected by arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(). > I think. The insn that gets passed to arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() is copy_insn()'s version, which is the file copy of the instruction. We should also take care of the in-memory copy, in case gdb had inserted a breakpoint at the same location, right? Updating is_swbp_insn() per-arch where needed will take care of both the cases, 'cos it gets called before arch_analyze_uprobe_insn() too. > > I will need to update the patches based on changes being made by Oleg > > and Sebastien for the single-step issues. > > Perhaps you can do this in a separate change? > > We need some (simple) changes in the arch agnostic code first, they > should not break poweppc. These changes are still under discussion. > Once we have "__weak arch_uprobe_step*" you can reimplement these > hooks and fix the problems with single-stepping. OK. Agreed. Ananth -- 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/
