On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 8:31 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:11 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +static void
> > > > > +uprobe_consumer_account(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + static unsigned int session_id;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (uc->session) {
> > > > > + uprobe->sessions_cnt++;
> > > > > + uc->session_id = ++session_id ?: ++session_id;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > The way I understand this code, you create a consumer every time you do
> > > > uprobe_register() and unregister makes it go away.
> > > >
> > > > Now, register one, then 4g-1 times register+unregister, then register
> > > > again.
> > > >
> > > > The above seems to then result in two consumers with the same
> > > > session_id, which leads to trouble.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm?
> > >
> > > ugh true.. will make it u64 :)
> > >
> > > I think we could store uprobe_consumer pointer+ref in session_consumer,
> > > and that would make the unregister path more interesting.. will check
> >
> > More interesting how? It's actually a great idea, uprobe_consumer
>
> nah, got confused ;-)
>
> > pointer itself is a unique ID and 64-bit. We can still use lowest bit
> > for RC (see my other reply).
>
> I used pointers in the previous version, but then I thought what if the
> consumer gets free-ed and new one created (with same address.. maybe not
> likely but possible, right?) before the return probe is hit
I think no matter what we do, uprobe_unregister() API has to guarantee
that when it returns consumer won't be hit (i.e., we removed consumer
from uprobe->consumers list, waited for RCU grace period(s), etc). So
I don't think this should be a problem. And that's one of the reasons
for the need for batched unregister, because we'll have to do sync_rcu
call there for this.
>
> jirka
