Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling

2014-04-10 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On 04/09/2014 09:44 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling In x86 asm-speak, relative jumps and calls are called simply "relative" (meaning that instructions contain an offset relative to current instruction pointer). I propose

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling

2014-04-10 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On 04/09/2014 09:44 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: On 04/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote: uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling In x86 asm-speak, relative jumps and calls are called simply relative (meaning that instructions contain an offset relative to current instruction pointer). I propose to

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling

2014-04-09 Thread Jim Keniston
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 21:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > OK. Please see the RFC changes. Obviously not for inclusion yet. And > > totally untested, except I verified that the test-case from 4/6 works. > > Still not really tested, but seems to work. > >

[RFC PATCH v2 0/6] uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling

2014-04-09 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 04/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > OK. Please see the RFC changes. Obviously not for inclusion yet. And > totally untested, except I verified that the test-case from 4/6 works. Still not really tested, but seems to work. Please see v2. All changes are minor except the s/ENOSYS/-ENOSYS/ fix.

[RFC PATCH v2 0/6] uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling

2014-04-09 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 04/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote: OK. Please see the RFC changes. Obviously not for inclusion yet. And totally untested, except I verified that the test-case from 4/6 works. Still not really tested, but seems to work. Please see v2. All changes are minor except the s/ENOSYS/-ENOSYS/ fix. Please

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] uprobes/x86: fix the reprel jmp/call handling

2014-04-09 Thread Jim Keniston
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 21:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: On 04/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote: OK. Please see the RFC changes. Obviously not for inclusion yet. And totally untested, except I verified that the test-case from 4/6 works. Still not really tested, but seems to work. Please see v2.