From: peterz@infradead.org
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Eddy Wu <Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/14] arm: kprobes: Use generic kretprobe trampoline handler
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:10:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200826141025.GU35926@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200826140852.GG1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 04:08:52PM +0200, peterz@infradead.org wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:46:43PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > static __used __kprobes void *trampoline_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > + return (void *)kretprobe_trampoline_handler(regs,
> > + (unsigned long)&kretprobe_trampoline,
> > + regs->ARM_fp);
> > }
>
> Does it make sense to have the generic code have a weak
> trampoline_handler() implemented like the above? It looks like a number
> of architectures have this trivial variant and it seems pointless to
> duplicate this.
Argh, I replied to the wrong variant, I mean the one that uses
kernel_stack_pointer(regs).
Then the architecture only needs to implement kernel_stack_pointer() if
there is nothing else to do.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-26 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-26 13:46 [RFC PATCH 00/14] kprobes: Unify kretprobe trampoline handlers Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:46 ` [RFC PATCH 01/14] kprobes: Add generic kretprobe trampoline handler Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:46 ` [RFC PATCH 02/14] x86/kprobes: Use " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:46 ` [RFC PATCH 03/14] arm: kprobes: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 14:08 ` peterz
2020-08-26 14:10 ` peterz [this message]
2020-08-26 15:04 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 15:26 ` peterz
2020-08-26 13:46 ` [RFC PATCH 04/14] arm64: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH 05/14] arc: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH 06/14] csky: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH 07/14] ia64: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH 08/14] mips: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH 09/14] parisc: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:47 ` [RFC PATCH 10/14] powerpc: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:48 ` [RFC PATCH 11/14] s390: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:48 ` [RFC PATCH 12/14] sh: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:48 ` [RFC PATCH 13/14] sparc: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-08-26 13:48 ` [RFC PATCH 14/14] kprobes: Remove NMI context check Masami Hiramatsu
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=20200826141025.GU35926@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=Eddy_Wu@trendmicro.com \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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