2005-04-26 10:40:37

by Vincent Hanquez

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: "[PATCH

Hi,

The following patch rename user_mode to user_mode_vm and add a user_mode macro
similar to the x86-64 one.

This is useful for Xen because the linux xen kernel does not runs on the same
priviledge that a vanilla linux kernel, and with this we just need to redefine
user_mode().

Please apply, or comments.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Hanquez <[email protected]>

diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c 2005-04-21 11:45:45.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c 2005-04-25 18:13:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@
}

#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- update_process_times(user_mode(regs));
+ update_process_times(user_mode_vm(regs));
#endif
}

diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c 2005-04-21 11:45:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c 2005-04-25 18:12:39.000000000 +0100
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@
info.si_code = TRAP_BRKPT;

/* User-mode eip? */
- info.si_addr = user_mode(regs) ? (void __user *) regs->eip : NULL;
+ info.si_addr = user_mode_vm(regs) ? (void __user *) regs->eip : NULL;

/* Send us the fakey SIGTRAP */
force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, tsk);
diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c 2005-04-21 11:45:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c 2005-04-25 18:13:12.000000000 +0100
@@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@
per_cpu(prof_counter, cpu);
}

- update_process_times(user_mode(regs));
+ update_process_times(user_mode_vm(regs));
}

if( ((1<<cpu) & voyager_extended_vic_processors) == 0)
diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c 2005-04-21 11:45:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c 2005-04-25 18:13:21.000000000 +0100
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
head = (struct frame_head *)regs->ebp;
#endif

- if (!user_mode(regs)) {
+ if (!user_mode_vm(regs)) {
while (depth-- && valid_kernel_stack(head, regs))
head = dump_backtrace(head);
return;
diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h 2005-03-02 07:37:48.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h 2005-04-25 17:05:54.000000000 +0100
@@ -57,7 +57,8 @@
#ifdef __KERNEL__
struct task_struct;
extern void send_sigtrap(struct task_struct *tsk, struct pt_regs *regs, int error_code);
-#define user_mode(regs) ((VM_MASK & (regs)->eflags) || (3 & (regs)->xcs))
+#define user_mode(regs) (3 & (regs)->xcs)
+#define user_mode_vm(regs) ((VM_MASK & (regs)->eflags) || user_mode(regs))
#define instruction_pointer(regs) ((regs)->eip)
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER)
extern unsigned long profile_pc(struct pt_regs *regs);


2005-04-26 11:26:11

by Vincent Hanquez

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 3/6][XEN][x86] Rename usermode macro

Hi,

The following patch rename user_mode to user_mode_vm and add a user_mode macro
similar to the x86-64 one.

This is useful for Xen because the linux xen kernel does not runs on the same
priviledge that a vanilla linux kernel, and with this we just need to redefine
user_mode().

ignore my previous mail, really sorry for the noise.

Please apply, or comments.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Hanquez <[email protected]>

diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c 2005-04-21 11:45:45.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c 2005-04-25 18:13:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1133,7 +1133,7 @@
}

#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- update_process_times(user_mode(regs));
+ update_process_times(user_mode_vm(regs));
#endif
}

diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c 2005-04-21 11:45:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/kernel/ptrace.c 2005-04-25 18:12:39.000000000 +0100
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@
info.si_code = TRAP_BRKPT;

/* User-mode eip? */
- info.si_addr = user_mode(regs) ? (void __user *) regs->eip : NULL;
+ info.si_addr = user_mode_vm(regs) ? (void __user *) regs->eip : NULL;

/* Send us the fakey SIGTRAP */
force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, tsk);
diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c 2005-04-21 11:45:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c 2005-04-25 18:13:12.000000000 +0100
@@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@
per_cpu(prof_counter, cpu);
}

- update_process_times(user_mode(regs));
+ update_process_times(user_mode_vm(regs));
}

if( ((1<<cpu) & voyager_extended_vic_processors) == 0)
diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c 2005-04-21 11:45:46.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/arch/i386/oprofile/backtrace.c 2005-04-25 18:13:21.000000000 +0100
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
head = (struct frame_head *)regs->ebp;
#endif

- if (!user_mode(regs)) {
+ if (!user_mode_vm(regs)) {
while (depth-- && valid_kernel_stack(head, regs))
head = dump_backtrace(head);
return;
diff -Naur linux-2.6.12-rc3/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h
--- linux-2.6.12-rc3/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h 2005-03-02 07:37:48.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc3.1/include/asm-i386/ptrace.h 2005-04-25 17:05:54.000000000 +0100
@@ -57,7 +57,8 @@
#ifdef __KERNEL__
struct task_struct;
extern void send_sigtrap(struct task_struct *tsk, struct pt_regs *regs, int error_code);
-#define user_mode(regs) ((VM_MASK & (regs)->eflags) || (3 & (regs)->xcs))
+#define user_mode(regs) (3 & (regs)->xcs)
+#define user_mode_vm(regs) ((VM_MASK & (regs)->eflags) || user_mode(regs))
#define instruction_pointer(regs) ((regs)->eip)
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER)
extern unsigned long profile_pc(struct pt_regs *regs);

2005-04-28 02:44:18

by Andrew Morton

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6][XEN][x86] Rename usermode macro

Vincent Hanquez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The following patch rename user_mode to user_mode_vm and add a user_mode macro
> similar to the x86-64 one.

Why didn't your testing pick up the x86_64 build error?

arch/x86_64/oprofile/built-in.o(.text+0x1d09): In function `x86_backtrace':
arch/x86_64/oprofile/../../i386/oprofile/backtrace.c:94: undefined reference to `user_mode_vm'


Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
---

include/asm-x86_64/ptrace.h | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff -puN include/asm-x86_64/ptrace.h~xen-x86-rename-usermode-macro-fix include/asm-x86_64/ptrace.h
--- 25/include/asm-x86_64/ptrace.h~xen-x86-rename-usermode-macro-fix 2005-04-27 18:22:12.000000000 -0700
+++ 25-akpm/include/asm-x86_64/ptrace.h 2005-04-27 18:22:12.000000000 -0700
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct pt_regs {

#if defined(__KERNEL__) && !defined(__ASSEMBLY__)
#define user_mode(regs) (!!((regs)->cs & 3))
+#define user_mode_vm(regs) user_mode(regs)
#define instruction_pointer(regs) ((regs)->rip)
extern unsigned long profile_pc(struct pt_regs *regs);
void signal_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, void __user *frame, char *where);
_

2005-04-28 14:39:19

by Vincent Hanquez

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6][XEN][x86] Rename usermode macro

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 07:43:43PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Why didn't your testing pick up the x86_64 build error?
>
> arch/x86_64/oprofile/built-in.o(.text+0x1d09): In function `x86_backtrace':
> arch/x86_64/oprofile/../../i386/oprofile/backtrace.c:94: undefined reference to `user_mode_vm'

ouch, sorry about that.

the x86 and x86-64 patches has been compiled separately, which obviously
was a wrong thing to do...
I will do a full test on x86-64 next time I'm doing such thing.

--
Vincent Hanquez