From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] powerpc/kprobes: Do not suppress instruction emulation if a single run failed
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:53:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913165359.475cb23ca0f76f88c3626d31@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a3a2ddbd004f0410943edb998011cfd31b97384e.1505336870.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 02:50:33 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Currently, we disable instruction emulation if emulate_step() fails for
> any reason. However, such failures could be transient and specific to a
> particular run. Instead, only disable instruction emulation if we have
> never been able to emulate this. If we had emulated this instruction
> successfully at least once, then we single step only this probe hit and
> continue to try emulating the instruction in subsequent probe hits.
Hmm, would this mean that the instruction is emulatable or not depends
on context? What kind of situation is considerable?
Thank you,
>
> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
> index c2a6ab38a67f..e848fe2c93fb 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -261,9 +261,19 @@ static int try_to_emulate(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
> */
> printk("Can't step on instruction %x\n", insn);
> BUG();
> - } else
> - /* This instruction can't be boosted */
> - p->ainsn.boostable = -1;
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * If we haven't previously emulated this instruction, then it
> + * can't be boosted. Note it down so we don't try to do so again.
> + *
> + * If, however, we had emulated this instruction in the past,
> + * then this is just an error with the current run. We return
> + * 0 so that this is now single-stepped, but continue to try
> + * emulating it in subsequent probe hits.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(p->ainsn.boostable != 1))
> + p->ainsn.boostable = -1;
> + }
>
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.14.1
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-13 23:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-13 21:20 [PATCH 1/5] powerpc/kprobes: Some cosmetic updates to try_to_emulate() Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-13 21:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] powerpc/kprobes: Do not suppress instruction emulation if a single run failed Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-13 23:53 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2017-09-14 6:38 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-14 9:45 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2017-09-14 10:03 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-13 21:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] powerpc/kprobes: Fix warnings from __this_cpu_read() on preempt kernels Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-14 0:36 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2017-09-14 6:47 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-14 10:10 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2017-09-16 11:25 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-14 9:48 ` Kamalesh Babulal
2017-09-13 21:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] powerpc/jprobes: Disable preemption when triggered through ftrace Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-14 0:05 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2017-09-14 10:25 ` Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-14 10:53 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2017-09-13 21:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] powerpc/jprobes: Validate break handler invocation as being due to a jprobe_return() Naveen N. Rao
2017-09-14 0:38 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2017-09-13 23:18 ` [PATCH 1/5] powerpc/kprobes: Some cosmetic updates to try_to_emulate() Masami Hiramatsu
2017-09-14 6:16 ` Kamalesh Babulal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170913165359.475cb23ca0f76f88c3626d31@kernel.org \
--to=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).