On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 09:40:26AM -0700, Lynch, Rusty wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen [mailto:[email protected]]
> >On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:58:50PM -0700, Rusty Lynch wrote:
> >> The following patch adds the x86_64 architecture specific
> implementation
> >
> >[....]
> >
> >Thanks for the long description.
> >
> >but...
> >
> >> +struct task_struct *arch_get_kprobe_task(void *ptr)
> >> +{
> >> + return ((struct thread_info *) (((unsigned long) ptr) &
> >> + (~(THREAD_SIZE -1))))->task;
> >> +}
> >
> >and
> >
> >
> >> + tsk = arch_get_kprobe_task(sara);
> >
> >
> >This is still wrong when the code is not executing on the process
> >stack, but on a interrupt/Exception stack. Any reason you cannot
> >just use current here?
> >
> >-Andi
>
> Ah... you are talking about if someone registers a return probe on
> something like an interrupt handler, right?
Yes.
>
> I was under the impression that I could not always count on the current
> I get from interrupt context to map to the current seen by the target
> function (that triggers the breakpoint.) It sounds like an invalid
> assumption lead to some extra complexity that isn't correct for all
> cases.
It is an invalid assumption, current works in all contexts. Except
if your GS is broken, but that should only happen when the kernel
is already very crashed.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
