> > > > One of the install_uprobe could be failing because the process was > > almost exiting, something like there was no mm->owner. Also lets > > assume that the first few install_uprobes go thro and the last > > install_uprobe fails. There could be breakpoint hits corresponding to > > the already installed uprobes that get displayed. i.e all > > breakpoint hits from the first install_uprobe to the time we detect a > > failed a install_uprobe and revert all inserted breakpoints will be > > shown as being captured. > > I think you can gracefully deal with the exit case and simply ignore > that one. But you cannot let arbitrary installs fail and still report > success, that gives very weak and nearly useless semantics. If there are more than one instance of a process running and if one instance of a process has a probe thro ptrace, install_uprobe would fail for that process with -EEXIST since we dont want to probe locations that have breakpoints already. Should we then act similar to the exit case, do we also deal gracefully? -- Thanks and Regards Srikar -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>