uprobes and empty functions

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com> writes:

> [...]
> I wrote a uprobes patch, attached, which deals with "rep ret" by
> treating it exactly like ret in the x86 uprobe_post_ssout (defined in
> four places, sheesh...)

Great!

> I only matched "f3 c3", but I'm not sure if we need bother with other
> rep/ret variants for this special case.  [...]

I'm more worried that we're finding cases where uprobes is willing to
place a breakpoint, but is not fully up to the job of executing the
breakpointed instruction.  To what extent could we flip over the tests
from "known not to work" to "not known to work" in rejecting
instructions?

- FChE