> > mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > delete_uprobe(uprobe);
> > mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> >
> > inode->uprobes_count--;
> > mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>
> Right, so this lonesome unlock got me puzzled for a while, I always find
> it best not to do asymmetric locking like this, keep the lock and unlock
> in the same function.
>
Okay, will do.
> > }
> >
> > int register_uprobe(...)
> > {
> > uprobe = alloc_uprobe(...); // find or insert in tree
> >
> > mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); // sync with register/unregister
> > if (uprobe->consumers) {
> > add_consumer();
> > goto put_unlock;
> > }
> > add_consumer();
> > inode->uprobes_count++;
> > mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex); //sync with mmap.
> > vma_prio_tree_foreach(..) {
> > // get mm ref, add to list blah blah
> > }
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe() {
> > if (ret) {
> > // del from list etc..
> > //
> > continue;
> > }
> > down_read(mm->mmap_sem);
> > ret = install_breakpoint();
> > up_read(..);
> > // del from list etc..
> > //
> > if (ret && (ret == -ESRCH || ret == -EEXIST))
> > ret = 0;
> > }
> >
> > if (ret)
> > _unregister_uprobe();
> >
> > put_unlock:
> > mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>
> You see, now this is a double unlock
hmm . .will correct this.
>
> > put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > void unregister_uprobe(...)
> > {
> > mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); // sync with register/unregister
> > uprobe = find_uprobe(); // ref++
> > _unregister_uprobe();
> > mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>
> idem
>
> > put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > }
> >
> > int mmap_uprobe(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> > struct list_head tmp_list;
> > struct uprobe *uprobe, *u;
> > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > struct inode *inode;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > if (!valid_vma(vma))
> > return ret; /* Bail-out */
> >
> > mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > inode = vma->vm_file->f_mapping->host;
> > if (inode->uprobes_count)
> > return ret;
> > __iget(inode);
> >
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tmp_list);
> >
> > mutex_lock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > add_to_temp_list(vma, inode, &tmp_list);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(uprobe, u, &tmp_list, pending_list) {
> > loff_t vaddr;
> >
> > list_del(&uprobe->pending_list);
> > if (ret)
> > continue;
> >
> > vaddr = vma->vm_start + uprobe->offset;
> > vaddr -= vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > ret = install_breakpoint(mm, uprobe, vaddr);
>
> Right, so this is the problem, you cannot do allocations under
> i_mmap_mutex, however I think you can under i_mutex.
I didnt know that we cannot do allocations under i_mmap_mutex.
Why is this?
I cant take i_mutex, because we would have already held
down_write(mmap_sem) here.
>
> > if (ret && (ret == -ESRCH || ret == -EEXIST))
> > ret = 0;
> > }
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_mutex);
> > iput(inode);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > int munmap_uprobe(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> > struct list_head tmp_list;
> > struct uprobe *uprobe, *u;
> > struct mm_struct *mm;
> > struct inode *inode;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > if (!valid_vma(vma))
> > return ret; /* Bail-out */
> >
> > mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > inode = vma->vm_file->f_mapping->host;
> > if (inode->uprobes_count)
> > return ret;
>
> Should that be !->uprobes_count?
Yes it should be !inode->uprobes_count.
(both here and in mmap_uprobe)
>
>
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>