Re: [patch 05/10] Linux Kernel Markers - i386 optimized version

Suparna Bhattacharya
2007-05-12T05:28:25Z

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:27:29AM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:59:18PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
>
> ...
> > > > * Third issue : Scalability. Changing code will stop every CPU on the
> > > > system for a while. Compared to this, the int3-based approach will run
> > > > through the breakpoint handler "if" one of the CPU happens to execute
> > > > this code at the wrong time. The standard case is just an IPI (to
> > >
> > > If I read the errata right then patching in an int3 will itself trigger
> > > the errata so anything could happen.
> > >
> > > I believe there are other safe sequences for doing code patching - perhaps
> > > one of the Intel folk can advise ?
>
> IIRC, when the first implementation of what exists now as kprobes was
> done (as part of the dprobes framework), this question did come up. I
> think the conclusion was that the errata applies only to multi-byte
> modifications and single-byte changes are guaranteed to be atomic.
> Given int3 on Intel is just 1-byte, we are safe.
>
> > I'll let the Intel guys confirm this, I don't have the reference nearby
> > (I got this information by talking with the kprobe team members, and
> > they got this information directly from Intel developers) but the
> > int3 is the one special case to which the errata does not apply.
> > Otherwise, kprobes and gdb would have a big, big issue.
>
> Perhaps Richard/Suparna can confirm.

I just tried digging up past discussions on this from Richard, about int3
being safe

http://sourceware.org/ml/systemtap/2005-q3/msg00208.html
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/20/30

Regards
Suparna

>
> Ananth

--
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India