* Christoph Hellwig ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:21:34PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Remove the kprobes mutex from kprobes.h, since it does not belong there. Also
> > remove all use of this mutex in the architecture specific code, replacing it by
> > a proper mutex lock/unlock in the architecture agnostic code.
>
> This is not very nice for avr32/sparc64 which have a noop arch_remove_kprobe
> and now need to take a mutex to do nothing. Maybe you can find a nice
> way to avoid that?
>
> Except for this issue making kprobes_mutex static to kprobes.c sounds like
> a good improvement.
>
Since only unregister_kprobe() calls arch_remove_kprobe(), and only
after having removed the struct kprobe from the kprobes list (while the
kprobes mutex is held), I wonder if there is any need to hold the
kprobes mutex at all when calling arch_remove_kprobe(). It turns out
that only get_insn_slot()/free_insn_slot() (which is in
kernel/kprobes.c, but called from arch specific code) seems to really
use protection of this mutex.
Would it make sense to protect the kprobe_insn_pages list with a
new kprobe_insn_mutex, nestable in the kprobe_mutex ?
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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]
