On 07/09, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 11:49 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Yep, that would be unfortunate (just like SIGILL sent when uretprobe > > > detects "improper" stack pointer progression, for example), > > > > In this case we a) assume that user-space tries to fool the kernel and > > Well, it's a bad assumption. User space might just be using fibers and > managing its own stack. Do you mean something like the "go" language? Yes, not supported. And from the kernel perspective it still looks as if user-space tries to fool the kernel. I mean, if you insert a ret-probe, the kernel assumes that it "owns" the stack, if nothing else the kernel has to change the ret-address on stack. I agree, this is not good. But again, what else the kernel can do in this case? > > Not really expected, and that is why the "TODO" comment in _unregister() > > was never implemented. Although the real reason is that we are lazy ;) > > Worked fine for 10+ years, which says something ;) Or may be it doesn't but we do not know because this code doesn't do uprobe_warn() ;) Oleg.
