From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FB0C43381 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:09:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA05820863 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:09:58 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DA05820863 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44P00h3C9mzDqJc for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:09:56 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com (client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=oleg@redhat.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44Nzyk1HBszDqDY for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:08:12 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B19B31688F2; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:08:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.17.34]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BE442BA82; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:08:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:08:05 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] powerpc: use common ptrace_syscall_enter hook to handle _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU Message-ID: <20190319170804.GA11525@redhat.com> References: <20190318104925.16600-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20190318104925.16600-5-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20190318172024.GB23521@redhat.com> <20190318172457.GD18196@e107155-lin> <20190318173341.GD23521@redhat.com> <20190318174028.GE18196@e107155-lin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190318174028.GE18196@e107155-lin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.41]); Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:08:10 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Haibo Xu , Steve Capper , Catalin Marinas , jdike@addtoit.com, x86@kernel.org, Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bin Lu , Richard Weinberger , Ingo Molnar , Paul Mackerras , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:33:41PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > Again, to me this patch just makes the code look worse. Honestly, I don't > > > > think that the new (badly named) ptrace_syscall_enter() hook makes any sense. > > > > > > > > > > Worse because we end up reading current_thread_info->flags twice ? > > > > Mostly because in my opinion ptrace_syscall_enter() buys nothing but makes > > the caller's code less readable/understandable. > > > > Sure, this is subjective. > > > > Based on what we have in that function today, I tend to agree. Will and > Richard were in the opinion to consolidate SYSEMU handling Well, personally I see no point... Again, after the trivial simplification x86 does if (work & (_TIF_SYSCALL_EMU | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) { ret = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs); if (ret || (work & _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)) return -1L; } this looks simple enough for copy-and-paste. > If there's a better way to achieve the same I can only say that if we add a common helper, I think it should absorb tracehook_report_syscall_entry() and handle both TIF's just like the code above does. Not sure this makes any sense. Oleg.