Re: [PATCH 0/2] ptrace: DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF fixes

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Aug 07 2012 - 11:50:04 EST


On 08/07, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2012 05:15 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> So I think __switch_to_extra() should set the bit before putting the
>>> task on the CPU.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Pardon me? __switch_to_extra() enables BTF before putting the task on
> CPU. This is fine. I was trying to say that there is no need to touch
> the debug register in debugger's context since __switch_to_extra() does
> it.

And this is what the changelog says and the patch does? Confused.

>>> If this bit is enabled on the wrong CPU then in will
>>> remain set forever if single steeping has not been / will not be
>>> enabled.
>>
>> I don't follow, could you explain in details?
>
> The SMP case where the debugger runs on CPU0 and tracee on CPU1.
> Without your "current != child" check the enable_block_step() enables
> block stepping on CPU0 and switch_to_extra() on CPU1.

Sure, and after the patch it doesn't touch BTF if current != child.

>> Just in case, X86_EFLAGS_TF sits in task_pt_regs(next), it has no
>> effect until the task returns to usermode. We only need to ensure
>> DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF was set/cleared correctly when it actually returns.
>
> Exactly. And __switch_to_extra() is perfect for the job (if we ignore
> uprobes for a moment).

Exactly.



Ah. I guess I simply misunderstood your original email. Sorry. Somehow
I thought you think that __switch_to_extra() needs fixes too.

Sorry for noise.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/