From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v14 03/12] kprobes: checks probe address is
	instruction boudary on x86
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:43:42 +0200
Message-ID: <20090818234341.GG5231@nowhere>
References: <20090813203403.31965.20973.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090813203428.31965.21939.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20090818230340.GF5231@nowhere> <4A8B3693.9000301@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	systemtap <systemtap@sources.redhat.com>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	DLE <dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>,
	"K.Prasad" <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	=?utf-8?B?UHJ6ZW15c8WCYXdQYXdlxYJjenlr?= <przemyslaw@pawelczyk.it>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@gmail.com>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.78.24]:53777 "EHLO
	ey-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751231AbZHRXno (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:43:44 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A8B3693.9000301@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:17:39PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> +	while (addr < paddr) {
> >> +		kernel_insn_init(&insn, (void *)addr);
> >> +		insn_get_opcode(&insn);
> >> +
> >> +		/* Check if the instruction has been modified. */
> >> +		if (insn.opcode.bytes[0] == BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION) {
> >> +			ret = recover_probed_instruction(buf, addr);
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm confused about the reason of this recovering. Is it to remove
> > kprobes behind the current setting one in the current function?
> 
> No, it recovers just an instruction which is probed by a kprobe,
> because we need to know the first byte of this instruction for
> decoding it.
> 
> Perhaps we'd better to have more generic interface (text_peek?)
> for it because another subsystem (e.g. kgdb) may want to insert int3...
> 
> Thank you,


Aah, I see now, it's to keep a sane check of the instructions
boundaries without int 3 artifacts in the middle.

But in that case, you should re-arm the breakpoint after your
check, right?

Or may be you could do the check without repatching?
May be by doing a copy of insn.opcode.bytes and replacing bytes[0]
with what a random kprobe has stolen?