lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: user_enable_single_step() && update_debugctlmsr()
On 08/01/2012 05:01 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/01, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> So a patch like
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
>> @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ static void enable_step(struct task_struct *child,
>> bool block)
>> unsigned long debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
>>
>> debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
>> - update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>> set_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_BLOCKSTEP);
>> + update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>> } else if (test_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_BLOCKSTEP)) {
>> unsigned long debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
>>
>> should fix the race
>
> No, I don't think it can fix something ;) or make any difference.

Why? You _first_ set the task flag followed by the CPU register. Now
switch_to() would see the bit set and act.

>> and _yes_ I also would follow your suggestion to
>> remove this update_debugctlmsr() here since switch_to() should do this.
>
> Agreed, but once again, uprobes needs it if child == current (but we should
> move this code into the trivial helper). If we change (I hope) uprobes to
> avoid user_enable_single_step() we will export the helper.

Okay. Looking at TIF_NOTSC I see that it does a preempt_disable() while
playing with the bit. So this would be probably more obvious than
switching the order :)

>
> Oleg.

Sebastian


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-01 18:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site