| Date | Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:45:33 +0100 | From | Anton Arapov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/7] uretprobes: return probe entry, prepare_uretprobe() |
| |
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 04:26:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 03/22, Anton Arapov wrote: [snip] > And ->dirty looks confusing... perhaps ->chained ? > > ri = kzalloc(...); > if (!ri) > return; > > ret_vaddr = arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(...); > if (ret_vaddr == -1) > goto err; > > if (ret_vaddr == trampoline_vaddr) { > if (!utask->return_instances) { > // This situation is not possible. > // (not sure we should send SIGSEGV) > pr_warn(...); > goto err; > }
If we don't send SIGSEGV, does it make sense to restore the original return address that was just hijacked? So that we just decline setting the breakpoint for this very case.
Anton.
> > ri->chained = true; > ret_vaddr = utask->return_instances->orig_ret_vaddr; > } > > fill-ri-and-add-push-it; > return; > > err: > kfree(ri); > return; > > Oleg. >
|