From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.247]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CF06B016C for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:40:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1322073616.14799.96.camel@twins> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3.2-rc2 5/30] uprobes: copy of the original instruction. From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:40:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20111118110733.10512.11835.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> References: <20111118110631.10512.73274.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> <20111118110733.10512.11835.sendpatchset@srdronam.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , LKML , Linux-mm , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , Steven Rostedt , Roland McGrath , Thomas Gleixner , Masami Hiramatsu , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Anton Arapov , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Jim Keniston , Stephen Wilson On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > + /* TODO : Analysis and verification of instruction */ As in refuse to set a breakpoint on an instruction we can't deal with? Do we care? The worst case we'll crash the program, but if we're allowed setting uprobes we already have enough privileges to do that anyway, right? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org