Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as
 kprobe_page_fault()
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
References: <1560420444-25737-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20190613130408.3091869d8e50d0524157523f@linux-foundation.org>
Message-ID: <c3316aca-2005-e092-80f6-ebd7652bd04f@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 10:45:44 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190613130408.3091869d8e50d0524157523f@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 06/14/2019 01:34 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 15:37:24 +0530 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Architectures which support kprobes have very similar boilerplate around
>> calling kprobe_fault_handler(). Use a helper function in kprobes.h to unify
>> them, based on the x86 code.
>>
>> This changes the behaviour for other architectures when preemption is
>> enabled. Previously, they would have disabled preemption while calling the
>> kprobe handler. However, preemption would be disabled if this fault was
>> due to a kprobe, so we know the fault was not due to a kprobe handler and
>> can simply return failure.
>>
>> This behaviour was introduced in the commit a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes:
>> Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()")
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
>> @@ -30,28 +30,6 @@
>>  
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_MMU
>>  
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_KPROBES
>> -static inline int notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr)
> 
> Some architectures make this `static inline'.  Others make it
> `nokprobes_inline', others make it `static inline __kprobes'.  The
> latter seems weird - why try to put an inline function into
> .kprobes.text?
> 
> So..  what's the best thing to do here?  You chose `static
> nokprobe_inline' - is that the best approach, if so why?  Does
> kprobe_page_fault() actually need to be inlined?

Matthew had suggested that (nokprobe_-inline) based on current x86
implementation. But every architecture already had an inlined definition
which I did not want to deviate from.

> 
> Also, some architectures had notify_page_fault returning int, others
> bool.  You chose bool and that seems appropriate and all callers are OK
> with that.

I would believe so. No one has complained yet :)