From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755249Ab1JKR3b (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:29:31 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59684 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754760Ab1JKR33 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:29:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:24:22 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , Linux-mm , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Linus Torvalds , Masami Hiramatsu , Hugh Dickins , Christoph Hellwig , Andi Kleen , Thomas Gleixner , Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton , Jim Keniston , Roland McGrath , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 26/26] uprobes: queue signals while thread is singlestepping. Message-ID: <20111011172422.GA7878@redhat.com> References: <20110920115938.25326.93059.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <20110920120517.25326.57657.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <1317128626.15383.61.camel@twins> <20110927131213.GE3685@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111005180139.GA5704@redhat.com> <20111006054710.GB17591@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111007165828.GA32319@redhat.com> <20111010122556.GB16268@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111010182535.GA6934@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111010182535.GA6934@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/10, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > HOWEVER! I simply do not know what should we do if the probed insn > is something like asm("1:; jmp 1b;"). IIUC, in this sstep_complete() > never returns true. The patch also adds the fatal_signal_pending() > check to make this task killlable, but the problem is: whatever we do, > I do not think it is correct to disable/delay the signals in this case. > With any approach. > > What do you think? Maybe we should simply disallow to probe such insns? Or. Could you explain why we can't simply remove the "if (vaddr == current->utask->xol_vaddr)" check from sstep_complete() ? In some sense, imho this looks more correct for "rep" or jmp/call self. The task will trap again on the same (original) address, and handler_chain() will be called to notify the consumers. But. I am really, really ignorant in this area, I am almost sure this is not that simple. Oleg.