On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:35:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/09, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >
> > handle_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > + struct return_consumer *ric = NULL;
> > struct uprobe *uprobe = ri->uprobe;
> > struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
> > - int srcu_idx;
> > + int srcu_idx, iter = 0;
> >
> > srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&uprobes_srcu);
> > list_for_each_entry_srcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node,
> > srcu_read_lock_held(&uprobes_srcu)) {
> > + /*
> > + * If we don't find return consumer, it means uprobe consumer
> > + * was added after we hit uprobe and return consumer did not
> > + * get registered in which case we call the ret_handler only
> > + * if it's not session consumer.
> > + */
> > + ric = return_consumer_find(ri, &iter, uc->id);
> > + if (!ric && uc->session)
> > + continue;
> > if (uc->ret_handler)
> > - uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> > + uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs, ric ? &ric->cookie : NULL);
>
> So why do we need the new uc->session member and the uc->session above ?
>
> If return_consumer_find() returns NULL, uc->ret_handler(..., NULL) can handle
> this case itself?
I tried to explain that in the comment above.. we do not want to
execute session ret_handler at all in this case, because its entry
counterpart did not run
jirka
>
> Oleg.
>
