thread.trap_no is saved in arch_uprobe_pre_xol(), it should be restored
in arch_uprobe_{post,abort}_xol() accordingly, otherwise the save operation
is meaningless, this change is similar with x86 and powerpc.
Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
---
arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
index 2d31a12..6277f2b 100644
--- a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
+++ b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
@@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ int arch_uprobe_post_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
WARN_ON_ONCE(current->thread.trap_no != UPROBE_TRAP_NR);
+ current->thread.trap_no = utask->autask.saved_trap_no;
instruction_pointer_set(regs, utask->vaddr + auprobe->insn_size);
@@ -101,6 +102,7 @@ void arch_uprobe_abort_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
{
struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
+ current->thread.trap_no = utask->autask.saved_trap_no;
/*
* Task has received a fatal signal, so reset back to probed
* address.
--
2.1.0
Cc:
Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Srikar Dronamraju <[email protected]>
On 04/23/2023 09:39 AM, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> thread.trap_no is saved in arch_uprobe_pre_xol(), it should be restored
> in arch_uprobe_{post,abort}_xol() accordingly, otherwise the save operation
> is meaningless, this change is similar with x86 and powerpc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
> index 2d31a12..6277f2b 100644
> --- a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ int arch_uprobe_post_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(current->thread.trap_no != UPROBE_TRAP_NR);
> + current->thread.trap_no = utask->autask.saved_trap_no;
>
> instruction_pointer_set(regs, utask->vaddr + auprobe->insn_size);
>
> @@ -101,6 +102,7 @@ void arch_uprobe_abort_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
>
> + current->thread.trap_no = utask->autask.saved_trap_no;
> /*
> * Task has received a fatal signal, so reset back to probed
> * address.
>
Hi Oleg and Srikar,
Could you please review this patch, thank you.
Thanks,
Tiezhu
On 04/24, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>
> >--- a/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
> >+++ b/arch/csky/kernel/probes/uprobes.c
> >@@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ int arch_uprobe_post_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
> >
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(current->thread.trap_no != UPROBE_TRAP_NR);
> >+ current->thread.trap_no = utask->autask.saved_trap_no;
> >
> > instruction_pointer_set(regs, utask->vaddr + auprobe->insn_size);
> >
> >@@ -101,6 +102,7 @@ void arch_uprobe_abort_xol(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
> >
> >+ current->thread.trap_no = utask->autask.saved_trap_no;
> > /*
> > * Task has received a fatal signal, so reset back to probed
> > * address.
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
ping, what is the status of this patch which has been received Acked-by:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/[email protected]/
Thanks,
Tiezhu
Hi Tiezhu,
I think you should ask arch/csky maintainers ;)
On 06/15, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>
> ping, what is the status of this patch which has been received Acked-by:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/[email protected]/
>
> Thanks,
> Tiezhu
>
On 06/16/2023 12:56 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Tiezhu,
>
> I think you should ask arch/csky maintainers ;)
Yes, thank you, sorry to trouble you.
>
> On 06/15, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
>>
>> ping, what is the status of this patch which has been received Acked-by:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/[email protected]/
Maybe Guo Ren (the maintainer of C-SKY ARCHITECTURE) could
take a look at it, thank you.
Thanks,
Tiezhu
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 9:20 AM Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/16/2023 12:56 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Hi Tiezhu,
> >
> > I think you should ask arch/csky maintainers ;)
>
> Yes, thank you, sorry to trouble you.
>
> >
> > On 06/15, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> >>
> >> ping, what is the status of this patch which has been received Acked-by:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/[email protected]/
>
> Maybe Guo Ren (the maintainer of C-SKY ARCHITECTURE) could
> take a look at it, thank you.
Sorry, I missed that. I would test it and put it into for-next.
>
> Thanks,
> Tiezhu
>
--
Best Regards
Guo Ren