Sorry for top-posting/formatting, Do you mean arch_uprobe_skip_sstep() ?
Yes, this __weak is wrong, already fixed in my tree. See http://marc.info/?l=linux-mips&m=138132052022388&w=2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Long" <[email protected]> To: "Oleg Nesterov" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], "Rabin Vincent" <[email protected]>, "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <[email protected]>, "Srikar Dronamraju" <[email protected]>, "Ingo Molnar" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 22 October, 2013 5:45:47 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/13] uprobes: allow ignoring of probe hits On 10/19/13 13:02, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/15, David Long wrote: >> >> @@ -1732,9 +1732,6 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs) >> return; >> } >> >> - /* change it in advance for ->handler() and restart */ >> - instruction_pointer_set(regs, bp_vaddr); >> - > > Well, this looks obviously wrong. This SET_IP() has the comment ;) > > Note also that with this breaks __skip_sstep() on x86. > > Oleg. > Yes, and there's a missing weak stub function in there too. It was a surprise to me that declaring an external as weak means that it quietly ignores the fact there is no definition for it at link time, and makes it zero. I think there may be some similar land mines elsewhere in the kernel, unrelated to these changes or uprobes in general. I have an updated version to go out with the v3 patches. It is working with v3.12-rc6 on x86 and ARM, to the extent I'm able to test it. -dl -- 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/
