| Message ID | 0d4193a90e4b2ad3cd2ef33d41228b80a2ac9f91.1492604782.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 22d8b3dec214cd43a773f621f95d254c50d2a092 |
| Headers | show |
BTW, as I pointed, 5/7 and 6/7 should be merged since this actually makes meaningful change. Thank you, On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 18:21:05 +0530 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@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 <ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@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 >
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.rao@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 <ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@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 <mhiramat@kernel.org> > >
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > 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? Yeah I'd definitely like this to be two patches. Otherwise when reading the combined diff it's much harder to see the change. cheers
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:11:10 +1000 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > > > 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? > > Yeah I'd definitely like this to be two patches. Otherwise when reading > the combined diff it's much harder to see the change. OK, let it be so. Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Thanks,
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 12:51:05 UTC, "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: > On kprobe handler re-entry, try to emulate the instruction rather than > single stepping always. > > Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Applied to powerpc next, thanks. https://git.kernel.org/powerpc/c/22d8b3dec214cd43a773f621f95d25 cheers
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) {