On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 6:17 AM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I guess you know this, but just in case...
>
> On 07/31, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> >
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/bpf_testmod/bpf_testmod.c
> > @@ -478,7 +478,8 @@ static void testmod_unregister_uprobe(void)
> > mutex_lock(&testmod_uprobe_mutex);
> >
> > if (uprobe.uprobe) {
> > - uprobe_unregister(uprobe.uprobe, &uprobe.consumer);
> > + uprobe_unregister_nosync(uprobe.uprobe, &uprobe.consumer);
> > + uprobe_unregister_sync();
> > uprobe.offset = 0;
> > uprobe.uprobe = NULL;
>
> this chunk has the trivial conlicts with tip perf/core
>
> db61e6a4eee5a selftests/bpf: fix uprobe.path leak in bpf_testmod
> adds path_put(&uprobe.path) here
>
> 3c83a9ad0295e make uprobe_register() return struct uprobe *
> removes the "uprobe.offset = 0;" line.
>
Yep, I'll rebase and adjust everything as needed.
> Oleg.
>
