On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 04:26:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/22, Anton Arapov wrote:
[snip]
> And ->dirty looks confusing... perhaps ->chained ?
>
> ri = kzalloc(...);
> if (!ri)
> return;
>
> ret_vaddr = arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(...);
> if (ret_vaddr == -1)
> goto err;
>
> if (ret_vaddr == trampoline_vaddr) {
> if (!utask->return_instances) {
> // This situation is not possible.
> // (not sure we should send SIGSEGV)
> pr_warn(...);
> goto err;
> }
If we don't send SIGSEGV, does it make sense to restore the original
return address that was just hijacked? So that we just decline setting
the breakpoint for this very case.
Anton.
>
> ri->chained = true;
> ret_vaddr = utask->return_instances->orig_ret_vaddr;
> }
>
> fill-ri-and-add-push-it;
> return;
>
> err:
> kfree(ri);
> return;
>
> 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/
