From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4F5C6B002D for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:45:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:39:53 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3.2-rc1 28/28] uprobes: introduce UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED logic Message-ID: <20111114163953.GA29399@redhat.com> References: <20111110183725.11361.57827.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <20111110184307.11361.8163.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111110184307.11361.8163.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , LKML , Linux-mm , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , Steven Rostedt , Roland McGrath , Thomas Gleixner , Masami Hiramatsu , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Anton Arapov , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Jim Keniston , Stephen Wilson On 11/11, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > +void __weak abort_xol(struct pt_regs *regs, struct uprobe_task *utask) > +{ > + set_instruction_pointer(regs, utask->vaddr); > +} OK, this is fine on 32bit. But X86_64 should also handle UPROBES_FIX_RIP_AX/CX? IOW, shouldn't we also do if (uprobe->fixups & UPROBES_FIX_RIP_AX) regs->ax = tskinfo->saved_scratch_register; else if (uprobe->fixups & UPROBES_FIX_RIP_CX) regs->cx = tskinfo->saved_scratch_register; on 64bit? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org