On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 09:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Harvey Harrison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Further unification work. There is a possible behavior change on
> > X86_32 here.
> >
> > is_IF_modifier(p->opcode)
> >
> > to
> >
> > is_IF_modifier(p->ainsn.insn)
> >
> > Which should be equivalent, but is not purely cosmetic as the rest of
> > the unification so far.
>
> hm, could you split this into two, the pure-equivalence and the
> possibly-modifying patch? (that way any potential breakage becomes
> bisectable) Same end result, just two commits instead of one.
>
Sure, I'll go back through and see if the series can be cleaned up a bit
as well as expand the commit message a little bit.
> also, did you manage to run/test kprobes (on 32-bit or 64-bit x86), and
> it worked fine?
>
Sorry, I should have predicated the whole series with RFC. Currently
this is compile-tested only. There is only the one patch that has
any behavioral change. I believe the series also pointed out an
existing bug in the 32-bit version...which I've preserved but will
note in the commit messages in the respun series.
In case you're interested, from the patch which unifies the definition
of MAX_INSTRUCTION_SIZE:
memcpy(p->ainsn.insn, p->addr, (MAX_INSN_SIZE + 1) *
sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
If you compare this memcpy from arch_prepare_kprobe in 32/64 bit I'm
almost sure the X86_32 version should be
... + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)
not
... * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)
Cheers,
Harvey
--
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]
