[BUGFIX PATCH V2 0/3] kprobes/arm: Improve kprobes implementation on arm
flat view
From: mhiramat@kernel.org (Masami Hiramatsu)
Date: 2017-02-17 21:44:10
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:01:10 +0000 "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 09:27 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:quoted
Hi, Here is the 2nd version of the patches which improve kprobe on arm implementation (a kind of bugfix). Version 1 is here; https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/13/538 In this version I didn't update the code, just update the patch description according to Tixy's comment and add his Ack. Thank you, --- Masami Hiramatsu (3): kprobes/arm: Allow to handle reentered kprobe on single-stepping kprobes/arm: Skip single-stepping in recursing path if possible kprobes/arm: Fix the return address of multiple kretprobesThanks for doing these. Am I correct in assuming we don't need to consider these fixes urgent or critical? Only the first looks like it could be serious, and the x86 fix for that is 3 years old and ARM has gone without it all this time. So I'm guessing it's fine to wait for the normal development process and deal with it after the about to open merge window is completed?
Agreed. I'm not sure how frequently FIQ is used in ARM, but anyway it happens only when root user intensively uses kprobes on FIQ handlers.
If so, I propose that I put the patches in a branch for Russell to pull later (unless he pipes up with objections or says otherwise). Meantime I'll investigate the kprobes test failures I see (which actually looks like cache/TLB issues and not test code problems after all).
OK, btw, I couldn't reproduce the kprobes test failure with CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA=y on qemu...
BTW, I added the?ARM kernel list to the CC. I spotted you didn't add it to you patch postings, which means people interested in ARM (other than Russell) wouldn't have seen them.
Ah, I forgot that, Thank you!
Thanks -- Tixy
-- Masami Hiramatsu [off-list ref]