On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 09:33:28PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > I never tested the 32 bit version of this. And we could just not
> > implement it (I don't think there's live kernel patching for it
> > either).
>
> That's correct, there is no livepatc
On Wed, 1 May 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I never tested the 32 bit version of this. And we could just not
> implement it (I don't think there's live kernel patching for it
> either).
That's correct, there is no livepatching on x86_32 (and no plans for
it). CONFIG_LIVEPATCH is not available fo
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 12:03:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:11 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Here goes, compile tested only...
>
> Ugh, two different threads. This has the same bug (same source) as the
> one Steven posted:
This is what Steve started from; lets c
On Wed, 1 May 2019 12:03:52 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:11 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Here goes, compile tested only...
>
> Ugh, two different threads. This has the same bug (same source) as the
> one Steven posted:
>
> > --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> > +
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:11 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Here goes, compile tested only...
Ugh, two different threads. This has the same bug (same source) as the
one Steven posted:
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
> @@ -1479,6 +1479,13 @@ ENTRY(int3)
>
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 02:58:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > + if (ftrace_location(ip)) {
> > + int3_emulate_call(regs, ftrace_update_func_call);
>
> Should be:
>
> int3_emulate_call(regs, (unsigned long)ftrace_regs_caller);
Ah, I lost the plot a little there.
>
On Wed, 1 May 2019 15:11:17 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:33:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Anyway, since Andy really likes the entry code change, can we have
> > that patch in parallel and judge the difference that way? Iirc, that
> > was x86-64 specific too.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:33:21AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, since Andy really likes the entry code change, can we have
> that patch in parallel and judge the difference that way? Iirc, that
> was x86-64 specific too.
Here goes, compile tested only...
It obviously needs a self-test,
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:33:21 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > + "ftrace_emulate_call_update_irqoff:\n\t"
> > + "push %gs:ftrace_bp_call_return\n\t"
> > + "sti\n\t"
> > + "jmp *ftrace_update_func_call\n"
>
> .. and this should then use the "push pu
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:33:21 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:49 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > +
> > +asm(
> > + ".text\n"
> > +
> > + /* Trampoline for function update with interrupts enabled */
> > + ".global ftrace_emulate_call_irqoff\n"
> > +
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:49 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> +
> +asm(
> + ".text\n"
> +
> + /* Trampoline for function update with interrupts enabled */
> + ".global ftrace_emulate_call_irqoff\n"
> + ".type ftrace_emulate_call_irqoff, @function\n"
> + "ftrace_emulate_c
From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)"
Nicolai Stange discovered[1] that if live kernel patching is enabled, and the
function tracer started tracing the same function that was patched, the
conversion of the fentry call site during the translation of going from
calling the live kernel patch trampoline
12 matches
Mail list logo
