From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, oleg@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
paulus@samba.org, jniethe5@gmail.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com,
sandipan@linux.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/uprobes: Validation for prefixed instruction
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:09:56 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b2b25299-ca5a-1d43-5532-5a489d4de789@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210303083836.GD1913@DESKTOP-TDPLP67.localdomain>
>> @@ -41,6 +41,14 @@ int arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe,
>> if (addr & 0x03)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC64) || !cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ARCH_31))
>> + return 0;
>
> Sorry, I missed this last time, but I think we can drop the above
> checks. ppc_inst_prefixed() already factors in the dependency on
> CONFIG_PPC64,
Yeah, makes sense. I initially added CONFIG_PPC64 check because
I was using ppc_inst_prefix(x, y) macro which is not available
for !CONFIG_PPC64.
> and I don't think we need to confirm if we're running on a
> ISA V3.1 for the below check.
Prefixed instructions would be supported only when ARCH_31 is set.
(Ignoring insane scenario where user probes on prefixed instruction
on p10 predecessors). So I guess I still need ARCH_31 check?
Ravi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-04 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-04 5:05 Ravi Bangoria
2021-03-03 8:38 ` Naveen N. Rao
2021-03-04 7:39 ` Ravi Bangoria [this message]
2021-03-04 7:32 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-04 10:13 ` Ravi Bangoria
2021-03-04 10:51 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-03-04 11:02 ` Ravi Bangoria
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=b2b25299-ca5a-1d43-5532-5a489d4de789@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jniethe5@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sandipan@linux.ibm.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®