Re: [patch 05/10] Linux Kernel Markers - i386 optimized version

[Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>]

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:59:18PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:

...
> > > * Third issue : Scalability. Changing code will stop every CPU on the
> > >   system for a while. Compared to this, the int3-based approach will run
> > >   through the breakpoint handler "if" one of the CPU happens to execute
> > >   this code at the wrong time. The standard case is just an IPI (to
> > 
> > If I read the errata right then patching in an int3 will itself trigger
> > the errata so anything could happen.
> > 
> > I believe there are other safe sequences for doing code patching - perhaps
> > one of the Intel folk can advise ?

IIRC, when the first implementation of what exists now as kprobes was
done (as part of the dprobes framework), this question did come up. I
think the conclusion was that the errata applies only to multi-byte
modifications and single-byte changes are guaranteed to be atomic.
Given int3 on Intel is just 1-byte, we are safe.

> I'll let the Intel guys confirm this, I don't have the reference nearby
> (I got this information by talking with the kprobe team members, and
> they got this information directly from Intel developers) but the
> int3 is the one special case to which the errata does not apply.
> Otherwise, kprobes and gdb would have a big, big issue.

Perhaps Richard/Suparna can confirm.

Ananth