Messages in this thread |  | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] (re-xmit): kprobes for i386 | Date | Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:21:30 +1000 |
| |
In message <1029893377.24300.162.camel@ldb> you write: > > --=-UkzkmpwPZ3tahG697mpi > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > > + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trapnr)) > > > > + return; > > > > if (!(regs->xcs & 3)) > > > > goto kernel_trap; > > > The kprobe check should be after the kernel_trap label. > > > > No. The entire *point* of being able to register a kprobe fault > > handler is to be able to handle any kernel faults yourself if you want > > to. > It seems you have misunderstood my point. > My idea is that since kprobes are only used for kernel mode address, we > should move the kprobe check in the code that executes after we check > that the fault is happening in kernel mode.
Ah, I see. That's true at the moment, but there's an (future) extension that covers userspace traps as well, which is why it was done this way.
Hope that clarifies, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |