From: rabin@rab.in (Rabin Vincent)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/9] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:15:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121021181504.GA4840@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121017173510.GA11019@redhat.com>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/16, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > 2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>:
> > > Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
> > > but OK, I know nothing about arm.
> >
> > This old discussion about kprobes should be useful:
> >
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-March/045755.html
>
> Thanks... Not sure I understand this discussion...
>
> And, to clarify, I am not arguing. Just curious.
>
> So, is this like cmov on x86? And this patch allows to not report if
> the condition is not true? Or there are other issues on arm?
Yes, I guess this is like CMOV on x86. In the ARM instruction set most
instructions can be conditionally executed.
In order to set the probe on a conditional instruction, we use an
undefined instruction with the same condition as the instruction we
replace. However, it is implementation defined whether an undefined
instruction with a failing condition code will trigger an undefined
instruction exception or just be executed as a NOP. So for those
processor implementations where we do get the undefined instruction
exception even for a failing condition code, we have to ignore it in
order to provide consistent behaviour.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rabin Vincent <rabin@rab.in>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:15:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121021181504.GA4840@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121017173510.GA11019@redhat.com>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/16, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> > 2012/10/15 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>:
> > > Not sure I understand why we shouldn't call handlers in this case,
> > > but OK, I know nothing about arm.
> >
> > This old discussion about kprobes should be useful:
> >
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-March/045755.html
>
> Thanks... Not sure I understand this discussion...
>
> And, to clarify, I am not arguing. Just curious.
>
> So, is this like cmov on x86? And this patch allows to not report if
> the condition is not true? Or there are other issues on arm?
Yes, I guess this is like CMOV on x86. In the ARM instruction set most
instructions can be conditionally executed.
In order to set the probe on a conditional instruction, we use an
undefined instruction with the same condition as the instruction we
replace. However, it is implementation defined whether an undefined
instruction with a failing condition code will trigger an undefined
instruction exception or just be executed as a NOP. So for those
processor implementations where we do get the undefined instruction
exception even for a failing condition code, we have to ignore it in
order to provide consistent behaviour.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-21 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-14 19:23 [PATCH 1/9] uprobes: move function declarations out of arch Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 2/9] uprobes: check for single step support Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-17 16:40 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-17 16:40 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-17 17:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-17 17:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 3/9] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-15 16:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-15 16:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-16 20:11 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-16 20:11 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-17 17:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-17 17:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-21 18:15 ` Rabin Vincent [this message]
2012-10-21 18:15 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-21 19:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-21 19:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-17 16:52 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-17 16:52 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 4/9] uprobes: allow arch access to xol slot Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-17 17:17 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-17 17:17 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 5/9] uprobes: allow arch-specific initialization Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-18 9:39 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-18 9:39 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 6/9] uprobes: flush cache after xol write Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-15 16:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-15 16:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-16 20:29 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-16 20:29 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-25 14:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-25 14:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-26 5:52 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-10-26 5:52 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-10-26 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-26 16:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-29 5:35 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-10-29 5:35 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-11-03 16:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-03 16:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-04 14:29 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-11-04 14:29 ` Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli
2012-11-14 17:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-14 17:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 7/9] uprobes: add arch write opcode hook Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 8/9] ARM: support uprobe handling Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-11-04 10:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-11-04 10:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-11-12 17:26 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-11-12 17:26 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` [PATCH 9/9] ARM: add uprobes support Rabin Vincent
2012-10-14 19:23 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-15 11:14 ` Dave Martin
2012-10-15 11:14 ` Dave Martin
2012-10-15 11:44 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-15 11:44 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-15 17:44 ` Dave Martin
2012-10-15 17:44 ` Dave Martin
2012-10-17 14:50 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2012-10-17 14:50 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy)
2012-10-21 18:43 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-21 18:43 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-21 18:59 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-21 18:59 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-15 17:31 ` Dave Martin
2012-10-15 17:31 ` Dave Martin
2012-10-21 18:27 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-21 18:27 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-17 17:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-17 17:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-15 17:19 ` [PATCH 1/9] uprobes: move function declarations out of arch Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-15 17:19 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-10-16 20:30 ` Rabin Vincent
2012-10-16 20:30 ` Rabin Vincent
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121021181504.GA4840@ubuntu \
--to=rabin@rab.in \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.