From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:04:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault() Message-Id: <20190613130408.3091869d8e50d0524157523f@linux-foundation.org> List-Id: References: <1560420444-25737-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <1560420444-25737-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Anshuman Khandual Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , Dave Hansen , Will Deacon , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , x86@kernel.org, Russell King , Matthew Wilcox , Ingo Molnar , James Hogan , linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , Vineet Gupta , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , Paul Burton , Martin Schwidefsky , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:37:24 +0530 Anshuman Khandual wrote: > Architectures which support kprobes have very similar boilerplate around > calling kprobe_fault_handler(). Use a helper function in kprobes.h to unify > them, based on the x86 code. > > This changes the behaviour for other architectures when preemption is > enabled. Previously, they would have disabled preemption while calling the > kprobe handler. However, preemption would be disabled if this fault was > due to a kprobe, so we know the fault was not due to a kprobe handler and > can simply return failure. > > This behaviour was introduced in the commit a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: > Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") > > ... > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c > @@ -30,28 +30,6 @@ > > #ifdef CONFIG_MMU > > -#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES > -static inline int notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr) Some architectures make this `static inline'. Others make it `nokprobes_inline', others make it `static inline __kprobes'. The latter seems weird - why try to put an inline function into .kprobes.text? So.. what's the best thing to do here? You chose `static nokprobe_inline' - is that the best approach, if so why? Does kprobe_page_fault() actually need to be inlined? Also, some architectures had notify_page_fault returning int, others bool. You chose bool and that seems appropriate and all callers are OK with that.