From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,
Maneesh Soni <maneesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Prasad <prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ptrace/x86: dont delay perf_event_disable() till second pass in ptrace_write_dr7()
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:12:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130414191232.GA28816@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130414191205.GA28791@redhat.com>
ptrace_write_dr7() skips ptrace_modify_breakpoint(disabled => true)
unless second_pass, this buys nothing but complicates the code and
means that we always do the main loop twice even if "disabled" was
never true.
The comment says:
Don't unregister the breakpoints right-away,
unless all register_user_hw_breakpoint()
requests have succeeded.
I think this logic was always wrong, hw_breakpoint_del() does not
free the slot so perf_event_disable() can't hurt.
But in any case this looks unneeded nowadays, and contrary to what
the comment says we do not do register_user_hw_breakpoint(), this
was removed by 24f1e32c "hw-breakpoints: Rewrite the hw-breakpoints
layer on top of perf events".
Remove the "second_pass" check from the main loop and simplify the
code. Since we have to check "bp != NULL" anyway, the patch also
removes the same check in ptrace_modify_breakpoint() and moves the
comment into ptrace_write_dr7().
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
index 0649f16..6814f27 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -609,14 +609,6 @@ ptrace_modify_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp, int len, int type,
int gen_len, gen_type;
struct perf_event_attr attr;
- /*
- * We should have at least an inactive breakpoint at this
- * slot. It means the user is writing dr7 without having
- * written the address register first
- */
- if (!bp)
- return -EINVAL;
-
err = arch_bp_generic_fields(len, type, &gen_len, &gen_type);
if (err)
return err;
@@ -634,10 +626,10 @@ ptrace_modify_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp, int len, int type,
*/
static int ptrace_write_dr7(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long data)
{
- struct thread_struct *thread = &(tsk->thread);
+ struct thread_struct *thread = &tsk->thread;
unsigned long old_dr7;
- int i, orig_ret = 0, rc = 0;
- int second_pass = 0;
+ int i, ret = 0, rc = 0;
+ bool second_pass = false;
data &= ~DR_CONTROL_RESERVED;
old_dr7 = ptrace_get_dr7(thread->ptrace_bps);
@@ -651,35 +643,31 @@ restore:
bool disabled = !decode_dr7(data, i, &len, &type);
struct perf_event *bp = thread->ptrace_bps[i];
- if (disabled) {
+ if (!bp) {
+ if (disabled)
+ continue;
/*
- * Don't unregister the breakpoints right-away, unless
- * all register_user_hw_breakpoint() requests have
- * succeeded. This prevents any window of opportunity
- * for debug register grabbing by other users.
+ * We should have at least an inactive breakpoint at
+ * this slot. It means the user is writing dr7 without
+ * having written the address register first.
*/
- if (!bp || !second_pass)
- continue;
+ rc = -EINVAL;
+ break;
}
rc = ptrace_modify_breakpoint(bp, len, type, tsk, disabled);
if (rc)
break;
}
- /*
- * Make a second pass to free the remaining unused breakpoints
- * or to restore the original breakpoints if an error occurred.
- */
- if (!second_pass) {
- second_pass = 1;
- if (rc < 0) {
- orig_ret = rc;
- data = old_dr7;
- }
+ /* Make a second pass to restore the original breakpoints if failed */
+ if (!second_pass && rc) {
+ second_pass = true;
+ ret = rc;
+ data = old_dr7;
goto restore;
}
- return orig_ret < 0 ? orig_ret : rc;
+ return ret;
}
/*
--
1.5.5.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-14 19:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-14 19:12 [PATCH 0/2] ptrace/x86: simplify ptrace_write_dr7() Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-14 19:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] ptrace/x86: simplify the "disable" logic in ptrace_write_dr7() Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-16 0:03 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-04-14 19:12 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-04-16 0:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] ptrace/x86: dont delay perf_event_disable() till second pass " Frederic Weisbecker
2013-04-16 13:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-16 22:00 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-04-17 12:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-14 19:30 ` [PATCH 0/2] ptrace/x86: simplify ptrace_write_dr7() Jan Kratochvil
2013-04-14 19:40 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-15 23:36 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-04-16 13:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-04-17 4:57 ` Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130414191232.GA28816@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maneesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).