Hi Oleg and Masami, On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:23:13 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 11/09, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> >> In that case, I suggest you to use "@+addr" for the relative address, >> since that is an offset, isn't that? :) > > Agreed, @+addr looks better!
Looks good to me too. > >> BTW, it seems that @addr syntax is hard to use for uprobes, because >> current uprobes is based on a binary, not a process, we cannot specify >> which process is probed when we define it. > > Yes, exactly. That is why we suggest that user-space should pass the > ip-relative address (actually offset). This should hopefully solve all > problems with relocations. Let me clarify what I understand. For @addr syntax: kernel does no translation and uses given address For @+addr syntax: user-space uses relative symbol address from a loaded base address and kernel calculates the base address using "current->utask->vaddr - tu->offset". Is that right? Thanks, Namhyung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/