From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755237AbaA1Qsi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:48:38 -0500
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:45378 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754708AbaA1Qsh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:48:37 -0500
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:48:11 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] de-asmify the x86-64 system call slowpath
Message-ID: <20140128164811.GH10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <CA+55aFzNxTtvNX7zqBELHs489e5mEx1sM=i=red=aQAGviXrNw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140127102759.GY11314@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20140127113627.GC10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20140127173931.GB32450@redhat.com>
 <20140128011841.GG10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20140128163730.GA7596@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140128163730.GA7596@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 05:38:08PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 01/28, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:39:31PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 01/27, Al Viro wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why is _TIF_UPROBE *not* a part
> > > > of _TIF_DO_NOTIFY_MASK, for example?
> > >
> > > Yes, please see another email. That is why uprobe_deny_signal()
> > > sets TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME along with TIF_UPROBE.
> >
> > *grumble* Can it end up modifying *regs?  From very cursory reading of
> > kernel/events/uprobe.c it seems to do so, so we probably want to leave
> > via iretq if that has hit, right?
> 
> But we do this anyway, restore_args path does iretq?
> 
> I mean, uprobe_notify_resume() is called from do_notify_resume(), it
> should be fine to modify*regs there?

See Linus' patch trying to avoid iretq path; it's really costly.  Looks
like that patch will have to treat _TIF_UPROBE the same way it treats
_TIF_SIGPENDING...