From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:04:08 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault() Message-Id: <20190613130408.3091869d8e50d0524157523f@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1560420444-25737-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> References: <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 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Anshuman Khandual Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Matthew Wilcox , Mark Rutland , Christophe Leroy , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , Michael Ellerman , Paul Mackerras , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Yoshinori Sato , "David S. Miller" , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , Vineet Gupta , James Hogan , Paul Burton , Ralf Baechle 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.