Hi, Andrew
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Here is a patch of kprobe-booster for i386 arch against linux-2.6.16-rc5.
>> The kprobe-booster patch is also under the influence of the NX-protection
>> support patch. So, I fixed that.
>>
>> Could you replace the previous patches with these patches?
>
> I'd prefer not to. Once a patch has been in -mm for this long I really
> prefer to not see wholesale replacements. When people do this to me I
> usually turn their replacements into incremental patches so we can see what
> changed. Which is useful.
>
> Your first patch was identical to what I already have, so I dropped that.
Thank you for your advice. I will re-create an additional patch
against recent -mm tree.
> Your second patch made these changes:
>
> --- devel/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c~kprobe-kprobe-booster-against-2616-rc5-for 2006-02-27 18:40:29.000000000 -0800
> +++ devel-akpm/arch/i386/kernel/kprobes.c 2006-02-27 18:40:57.000000000 -0800
> @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ static int __kprobes kprobe_handler(stru
>
> if (p->ainsn.boostable == 1 &&
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> - !(pre_preempt_count) && /*
> + !(pre_preempt_count()) && /*
> * This enables booster when the direct
> * execution path aren't preempted.
> */
> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static int __kprobes kprobe_handler(stru
> !p->post_handler && !p->break_handler ) {
> /* Boost up -- we can execute copied instructions directly */
> reset_current_kprobe();
> - regs->eip = (unsigned long)&p->ainsn.insn;
> + regs->eip = (unsigned long)p->ainsn.insn;
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> return 1;
> }
>
> The first hunk is surely wrong - pre_preempt_count is a local unsigned
> integer, not a function.
I'm sorry. It's my fault. The first hunk is just a degradation.
> And I'm not sure about the second hunk either - surely an `eip' should
> point at an instruction, not be assigned the value of an instruction?
This change is important. Because NX-protection support patch makes
the ainsn.insn a pointer instead of a data structure, so now (&p->ainsn.insn)
means just an address of the pointer -- not the instruction address.
> So I'll drop both patches. If you have bugfixes, please make them relative
> to already-merged things. Against most-recent -mm is best, as I do fix
> patches up, and other people send fixes which you might not have merged
> locally. And please ensure that the changes compile and run with and
> without CONFIG_PREEMPT!
OK. I will get the latest -mm tree and test it.
And I will re-send the patch ASAP.
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
2nd Research Dept.
Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory
E-mail: [email protected]
-
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]
