Excerpts from Masami Hiramatsu's message of April 19, 2017 20:13:
BTW, as I pointed, 5/7 and 6/7 should be merged since this actually makes meaningful change.
Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous reply in the (!) previous patch series.
Since this has to go through the powerpc tree, I followed this since I felt that Michael Ellerman prefers to keep functional changes separate from refactoring. I'm fine with either approach.
Michael? Thanks! - Naveen
Thank you, On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:21:05 +0530 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:On kprobe handler re-entry, try to emulate the instruction rather than single stepping always. Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ana...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c index 46e8c1e03ce4..067e9863bfdf 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c @@ -276,6 +276,14 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) kprobes_inc_nmissed_count(p); prepare_singlestep(p, regs); kcb->kprobe_status = KPROBE_REENTER; + if (p->ainsn.boostable >= 0) { + ret = try_to_emulate(p, regs); + + if (ret > 0) { + restore_previous_kprobe(kcb); + return 1; + } + } return 1; } else { if (*addr != BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) { -- 2.12.1-- Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org>
