Ah. we certainly misunderstand each other. On 08/29, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 05:20:33PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > SNIP SNIP > right.. if the event is not added by perf_trace_add on this cpu > it won't go pass this point, so no problem for perf Yes, and this is what I tried to verify. In your previous email you said and I think the same will happen for perf record in this case where instead of running the program we will execute perf_tp_event and I tried verify this can't happen. So no problem for perf ;) > but the issue is with bpf program triggered earlier by return uprobe Well, the issue with bpf program (with the bpf_prog_array_valid(call) code in __uprobe_perf_func) was clear from the very beginning, no questions. > and [1] patch seems to fix that I'd say this patch fixes the symptoms, and it doesn't fix all the problems. But I can't suggest anything better for bpf code, so I won't really argue. However the changelog and even the subject is wrong. > I sent out the bpf selftest that triggers the issue [2] Thanks, I'll try take a look tomorrow. Oleg.
