Re: [PATCH 4/7] uretprobes: return probe entry, prepare_uretprobe()

[Anton Arapov]

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.
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/