(2014/08/01 20:00), Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Skip kretprobe hit in NMI context, because if an NMI happens
>> inside the critical section protected by kretprobe_table.lock
>> and another(or same) kretprobe hit, pre_kretprobe_handler
>> tries to lock kretprobe_table.lock again.
>> Normal interrupts have no problem because they are disabled
>> with the lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> kernel/kprobes.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
>> index 734e9a7..a537029 100644
>> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
>> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
>> @@ -1778,6 +1778,12 @@ static int pre_handler_kretprobe(struct kprobe *p,
>> struct pt_regs *regs)
>> unsigned long hash, flags = 0;
>> struct kretprobe_instance *ri;
>>
>> + /* To avoid deadlock, prohibit return probing in NMI context */
>> + if (in_nmi()) {
>
> Should be unlikely()?
Ah, Indeed.
>
>> + rp->nmissed++;
>> + return 0;
>
> In another place in this function we do:
>
> } else {
> rp->nmissed++;
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rp->lock, flags);
> }
>
> Is it safe to modify rp-> without locking?
Yes, rp->nmissed is just for noticing the fault to users,
not for controlling.:) If we need more accurate value, we'd
better make it atomic_t.
Thank you,
>
>> + }
>> +
>> /*TODO: consider to only swap the RA after the last pre_handler fired */
>
> Nit: That comment is oddly formatted.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: [email protected]
--
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/
