lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 14 Jan 2010 11:23:35 -0500
FromMasami Hiramatsu <>
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/8] jump label v4 - x86: Introduce generic jump patching without stop_machine
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 11:26 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * text_poke_fixup() -- cross-modifying kernel text with fixup address.
>>> + * @addr: Modifying address.
>>> + * @opcode: New instruction.
>>> + * @len: length of modifying bytes.
>>> + * @fixup: Fixup address.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note: You must backup replaced instructions before calling this,
>>> + * if you need to recover it.
>>> + * Note: Must be called under text_mutex.
>>> + */
>>> +void *__kprobes text_poke_fixup(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len,
>>> + void *fixup)
>>> +{
>>> + static const unsigned char int3_insn = BREAKPOINT_INSTRUCTION;
>>> + static const int int3_size = sizeof(int3_insn);
>>> +
>>> + /* Replacing 1 byte can be done atomically. */
>>> + if (unlikely(len <= 1))
>>> + return text_poke(addr, opcode, len);
>>
>> This part bothers me. The text_poke just writes over the text directly
>> (using a separate mapping). But if that memory is in the pipeline of
>> another CPU, I think this could cause a GPF.
>
> It looks like we are thinking along the same lines.
>
> I'm under the impression that I pointed out this exact same issue in the
> previous round of review a few weeks ago. Does this submission reflect
> the up-to-date state of this patch ?

No, the latest patch just skips step 3 if len == 1.
(Jason, could you update your repository?)
I thought I sent it the end of the last year ... :)

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/18/312

Thank you,

--
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-14 17:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2010