On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 14:35 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > > int mmap_uprobe(...)
> > > > {
> > > > spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > > > for_each_probe_in_inode() {
> > > > // create list;
>
> Here again if we have multiple mmaps for the same inode occuring on two
> process contexts (I mean two different mm's), we have to manage how we
> add the same uprobe to more than one list. Atleast my current
> uprobe->pending_list wouldnt work.
Sure, wasn't concerned about that particular problem.
> > > > }
> > > > spin_unlock(..);
> > > >
> > > > list_for_each_entry_safe() {
> > > > // remove from list
> > > > ret = install_breakpoint();
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > goto fail;
> > > > if (!uprobe_still_there()) // takes treelock
> > > > remove_breakpoint();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > fail:
> > > > list_for_each_entry_safe() {
> > > > // destroy list
> > > > }
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > register_uprobe will race with mmap_uprobe's first pass.
> > > So we might end up with a vma that doesnot have a breakpoint inserted
> > > but inserted in all other vma that map to the same inode.
> >
> > I'm not seeing this though, if mmap_uprobe() is before register_uprobe()
> > inserts the probe in the tree, the vma is already in the rmap and
> > register_uprobe() will find it in its vma walk. If its after,
> > mmap_uprobe() will find it and install, if a concurrent
> > register_uprobe()'s vma walk also finds it, it will -EEXISTS and ignore
> > the error.
> >
>
> You are right here.
>
> What happens if the register_uprobe comes first and walks around the
> vmas, Between mmap comes in does the insertion including the second pass
> and returns. register_uprobe now finds that it cannot insert breakpoint
> on one of the vmas and hence has to roll-back. The vma on which
> mmap_uprobe inserted will not be in the list of vmas from which we try
> to remove the breakpoint.
Yes it will, remember __register_uprobe() will call
__unregister_uprobe() on fail, which does a new vma-rmap walk which will
then see the newly added mmap.
> How about something like this:
> if (!mutex_trylock(uprobes_mutex)) {
>
> /*
> * Unable to get uprobes_mutex; Probably contending with
> * someother thread. Drop mmap_sem; acquire uprobes_mutex
> * and mmap_sem and then verify vma.
> */
>
> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> mutex_lock&(uprobes_mutex);
> down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> vma = find_vma(mm, start);
> /* Not the same vma */
> if (!vma || vma->vm_start != start ||
> vma->vm_pgoff != pgoff || !valid_vma(vma) ||
> inode->i_mapping != vma->vm_file->f_mapping)
> goto mmap_out;
> }
Only if we have to, I really don't like dropping mmap_sem in the middle
of mmap. I'm fairly sure we can come up with some ordering scheme that
ought to make mmap_uprobe() work without the uprobes_mutex.
On thing I was thinking of to fix that initial problem of spurious traps
was to leave the uprobe in the tree but skip all probes without
consumers in mmap_uprobe().
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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