On Wed, 3 Jul 2024 10:13:15 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 03:39:28PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > Simplify uprobe registration/unregistration interfaces by making offset > > and ref_ctr_offset part of uprobe_consumer "interface". In practice, all > > existing users already store these fields somewhere in uprobe_consumer's > > containing structure, so this doesn't pose any problem. We just move > > some fields around. > > > > On the other hand, this simplifies uprobe_register() and > > uprobe_unregister() API by having only struct uprobe_consumer as one > > thing representing attachment/detachment entity. This makes batched > > versions of uprobe_register() and uprobe_unregister() simpler. > > > > This also makes uprobe_register_refctr() unnecessary, so remove it and > > simplify consumers. > > > > No functional changes intended. > > > > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > include/linux/uprobes.h | 18 +++---- > > kernel/events/uprobes.c | 19 ++----- > > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 21 +++----- > > kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 53 ++++++++----------- > > .../selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c | 22 ++++---- > > 5 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/uprobes.h b/include/linux/uprobes.h > > index b503fafb7fb3..a75ba37ce3c8 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/uprobes.h > > +++ b/include/linux/uprobes.h > > @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ struct uprobe_consumer { > > enum uprobe_filter_ctx ctx, > > struct mm_struct *mm); > > > > + /* associated file offset of this probe */ > > + loff_t offset; > > + /* associated refctr file offset of this probe, or zero */ > > + loff_t ref_ctr_offset; > > + /* for internal uprobe infra use, consumers shouldn't touch fields below */ > > struct uprobe_consumer *next; > > }; > > > > @@ -110,10 +115,9 @@ extern bool is_trap_insn(uprobe_opcode_t *insn); > > extern unsigned long uprobe_get_swbp_addr(struct pt_regs *regs); > > extern unsigned long uprobe_get_trap_addr(struct pt_regs *regs); > > extern int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long vaddr, uprobe_opcode_t); > > -extern int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc); > > -extern int uprobe_register_refctr(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc); > > +extern int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, struct uprobe_consumer *uc); > > extern int uprobe_apply(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc, bool); > > -extern void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *uc); > > +extern void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, struct uprobe_consumer *uc); > > It seems very weird and unnatural to split inode and offset like this. > The whole offset thing only makes sense within the context of an inode. Hm, so would you mean we should have inode inside the uprobe_consumer? If so, I think it is reasonable. Thank you, > > So yeah, lets not do this. -- Masami Hiramatsu