* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-12 20:24 ` David Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-12 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Anil S Keshavamurthy, David S. Miller,
Masami Hiramatsu, Jonathan Corbet, linux-doc, linux-kernel,
linux-arm-kernel, sparclinux, catalin.marinas, daniel.thompson,
marc.zyngier
Cc: Mark Brown
From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/kprobes.txt | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/kprobes.txt b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
index 1f9b3e2..1f6d45a 100644
--- a/Documentation/kprobes.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
@@ -103,6 +103,16 @@ Note that the probed function's args may be passed on the stack
or in registers. The jprobe will work in either case, so long as the
handler's prototype matches that of the probed function.
+Note that in some architectures (e.g.: arm64 and sparc64) the stack
+copy is not done, as the actual location of stacked parameters may be
+outside of a reasonable MAX_STACK_SIZE value and because that location
+cannot be determined by the jprobes code. In this case the jprobes
+user must be careful to make certain the calling signature of the
+function does not cause parameters to be passed on the stack (e.g.:
+more than eight function arguments, an argument of more than sixteen
+bytes, or more than 64 bytes of argument data, depending on
+architecture).
+
1.3 Return Probes
1.3.1 How Does a Return Probe Work?
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-12 20:24 ` David Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-12 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/kprobes.txt | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/kprobes.txt b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
index 1f9b3e2..1f6d45a 100644
--- a/Documentation/kprobes.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
@@ -103,6 +103,16 @@ Note that the probed function's args may be passed on the stack
or in registers. The jprobe will work in either case, so long as the
handler's prototype matches that of the probed function.
+Note that in some architectures (e.g.: arm64 and sparc64) the stack
+copy is not done, as the actual location of stacked parameters may be
+outside of a reasonable MAX_STACK_SIZE value and because that location
+cannot be determined by the jprobes code. In this case the jprobes
+user must be careful to make certain the calling signature of the
+function does not cause parameters to be passed on the stack (e.g.:
+more than eight function arguments, an argument of more than sixteen
+bytes, or more than 64 bytes of argument data, depending on
+architecture).
+
1.3 Return Probes
1.3.1 How Does a Return Probe Work?
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
2016-08-12 20:24 ` David Long
(?)
@ 2016-08-12 23:46 ` Masami Hiramatsu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2016-08-12 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
>
> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>
> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Thanks!
> ---
> Documentation/kprobes.txt | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kprobes.txt b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> index 1f9b3e2..1f6d45a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> @@ -103,6 +103,16 @@ Note that the probed function's args may be passed on the stack
> or in registers. The jprobe will work in either case, so long as the
> handler's prototype matches that of the probed function.
>
> +Note that in some architectures (e.g.: arm64 and sparc64) the stack
> +copy is not done, as the actual location of stacked parameters may be
> +outside of a reasonable MAX_STACK_SIZE value and because that location
> +cannot be determined by the jprobes code. In this case the jprobes
> +user must be careful to make certain the calling signature of the
> +function does not cause parameters to be passed on the stack (e.g.:
> +more than eight function arguments, an argument of more than sixteen
> +bytes, or more than 64 bytes of argument data, depending on
> +architecture).
> +
> 1.3 Return Probes
>
> 1.3.1 How Does a Return Probe Work?
> --
> 2.5.0
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-12 23:46 ` Masami Hiramatsu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2016-08-12 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Anil S Keshavamurthy, David S. Miller,
Jonathan Corbet, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
sparclinux, catalin.marinas, daniel.thompson, marc.zyngier,
Mark Brown
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
>
> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>
> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Thanks!
> ---
> Documentation/kprobes.txt | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kprobes.txt b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> index 1f9b3e2..1f6d45a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> @@ -103,6 +103,16 @@ Note that the probed function's args may be passed on the stack
> or in registers. The jprobe will work in either case, so long as the
> handler's prototype matches that of the probed function.
>
> +Note that in some architectures (e.g.: arm64 and sparc64) the stack
> +copy is not done, as the actual location of stacked parameters may be
> +outside of a reasonable MAX_STACK_SIZE value and because that location
> +cannot be determined by the jprobes code. In this case the jprobes
> +user must be careful to make certain the calling signature of the
> +function does not cause parameters to be passed on the stack (e.g.:
> +more than eight function arguments, an argument of more than sixteen
> +bytes, or more than 64 bytes of argument data, depending on
> +architecture).
> +
> 1.3 Return Probes
>
> 1.3.1 How Does a Return Probe Work?
> --
> 2.5.0
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-12 23:46 ` Masami Hiramatsu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2016-08-12 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
>
> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>
> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@linaro.org>
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Thanks!
> ---
> Documentation/kprobes.txt | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kprobes.txt b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> index 1f9b3e2..1f6d45a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kprobes.txt
> @@ -103,6 +103,16 @@ Note that the probed function's args may be passed on the stack
> or in registers. The jprobe will work in either case, so long as the
> handler's prototype matches that of the probed function.
>
> +Note that in some architectures (e.g.: arm64 and sparc64) the stack
> +copy is not done, as the actual location of stacked parameters may be
> +outside of a reasonable MAX_STACK_SIZE value and because that location
> +cannot be determined by the jprobes code. In this case the jprobes
> +user must be careful to make certain the calling signature of the
> +function does not cause parameters to be passed on the stack (e.g.:
> +more than eight function arguments, an argument of more than sixteen
> +bytes, or more than 64 bytes of argument data, depending on
> +architecture).
> +
> 1.3 Return Probes
>
> 1.3.1 How Does a Return Probe Work?
> --
> 2.5.0
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
2016-08-12 20:24 ` David Long
(?)
@ 2016-08-15 14:25 ` Jonathan Corbet
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2016-08-15 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 14:25 ` Jonathan Corbet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2016-08-15 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Anil S Keshavamurthy, David S. Miller,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
sparclinux, catalin.marinas, daniel.thompson, marc.zyngier,
Mark Brown
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 14:25 ` Jonathan Corbet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2016-08-15 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
2016-08-15 14:25 ` Jonathan Corbet
(?)
@ 2016-08-15 14:49 ` David Long
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-15 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>
> Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
>
> jon
>
Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
Thanks,
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 14:49 ` David Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-15 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet, sparclinux, daniel.thompson
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli, Anil S Keshavamurthy, David S. Miller,
Masami Hiramatsu, linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel,
catalin.marinas, marc.zyngier, Mark Brown
On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>
> Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
>
> jon
>
Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
Thanks,
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 14:49 ` David Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-15 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>
> Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
>
> jon
>
Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
Thanks,
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
2016-08-15 14:49 ` David Long
(?)
@ 2016-08-15 15:32 ` Jonathan Corbet
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2016-08-15 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
> >
> > Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
> >
> > jon
> >
>
> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 15:32 ` Jonathan Corbet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2016-08-15 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Long
Cc: sparclinux, daniel.thompson, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli,
Anil S Keshavamurthy, David S. Miller, Masami Hiramatsu,
linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, catalin.marinas,
marc.zyngier, Mark Brown
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
> >
> > Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
> >
> > jon
> >
>
> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 15:32 ` Jonathan Corbet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2016-08-15 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
> >
> > Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
> >
> > jon
> >
>
> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
2016-08-15 15:32 ` Jonathan Corbet
(?)
@ 2016-08-15 15:41 ` David Long
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 08/15/2016 11:32 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
>>> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
>>>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>>>
>>> Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
>>>
>>> jon
>>>
>>
>> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
>
> So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
>
> jon
>
I think we can apply it. It's not looking like we're going to get
comments from a sparc/kprobes maintainer. The need for this change was
first addressed on the sparc email alias exactly one week ago, which is
maybe long enough to wait.
Sorry for the trouble,
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 15:41 ` David Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: sparclinux, daniel.thompson, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli,
Anil S Keshavamurthy, David S. Miller, Masami Hiramatsu,
linux-doc, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, catalin.marinas,
marc.zyngier, Mark Brown
On 08/15/2016 11:32 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
>>> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
>>>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>>>
>>> Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
>>>
>>> jon
>>>
>>
>> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
>
> So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
>
> jon
>
I think we can apply it. It's not looking like we're going to get
comments from a sparc/kprobes maintainer. The need for this change was
first addressed on the sparc email alias exactly one week ago, which is
maybe long enough to wait.
Sorry for the trouble,
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 15:41 ` David Long
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: David Long @ 2016-08-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 08/15/2016 11:32 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
>>> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
>>>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>>>
>>> Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
>>>
>>> jon
>>>
>>
>> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
>
> So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
>
> jon
>
I think we can apply it. It's not looking like we're going to get
comments from a sparc/kprobes maintainer. The need for this change was
first addressed on the sparc email alias exactly one week ago, which is
maybe long enough to wait.
Sorry for the trouble,
-dl
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
2016-08-15 15:32 ` Jonathan Corbet
(?)
@ 2016-08-15 15:41 ` Catalin Marinas
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2016-08-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 09:32:43AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> > > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> > >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
> > >
> > > Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
> > >
> > > jon
> >
> > Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
>
> So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
To avoid any doubt, for arm64:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
(and I want the patch applied)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 15:41 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2016-08-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet
Cc: David Long, daniel.thompson, linux-doc, marc.zyngier, Mark Brown,
linux-kernel, Anil S Keshavamurthy, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli,
Masami Hiramatsu, sparclinux, David S. Miller, linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 09:32:43AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> > > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> > >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
> > >
> > > Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
> > >
> > > jon
> >
> > Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
>
> So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
To avoid any doubt, for arm64:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
(and I want the patch applied)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying limitations
@ 2016-08-15 15:41 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2016-08-15 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 09:32:43AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
> > > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
> > >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
> > >
> > > Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
> > >
> > > jon
> >
> > Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
>
> So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
To avoid any doubt, for arm64:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
(and I want the patch applied)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread