> >
> > -static struct uprobe *__find_uprobe(struct inode * inode, loff_t offset)
> > +static struct uprobe *__find_uprobe(struct inode * inode, loff_t offset,
> > + struct rb_node **close_match)
> > {
> > struct uprobe u = { .inode = inode, .offset = offset };
> > struct rb_node *n = uprobes_tree.rb_node;
> > struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > - int match;
> > + int match, match_inode;
> >
> > while (n) {
> > uprobe = rb_entry(n, struct uprobe, rb_node);
> > - match = match_uprobe(&u, uprobe);
> > + match = match_uprobe(&u, uprobe, &match_inode);
> > + if (close_match && match_inode)
> > + *close_match = n;
>
> Because:
>
> if (close_match && uprobe->inode == inode)
>
> Isn't good enough? Also, returning an rb_node just seems iffy..
yup this can be done. can you please elaborate on why passing back an
rb_node is an issue?
>
> > if (!match) {
> > atomic_inc(&uprobe->ref);
> > return uprobe;
>
>
> Why not something like:
>
>
> +static struct uprobe *__find_uprobe(struct inode * inode, loff_t offset,
> bool inode_only)
> +{
> struct uprobe u = { .inode = inode, .offset = inode_only ? 0 : offset };
> + struct rb_node *n = uprobes_tree.rb_node;
> + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> struct uprobe *ret = NULL;
> + int match;
> +
> + while (n) {
> + uprobe = rb_entry(n, struct uprobe, rb_node);
> + match = match_uprobe(&u, uprobe);
> + if (!match) {
> if (!inode_only)
> atomic_inc(&uprobe->ref);
> + return uprobe;
> + }
> if (inode_only && uprobe->inode == inode)
> ret = uprobe;
> + if (match < 0)
> + n = n->rb_left;
> + else
> + n = n->rb_right;
> +
> + }
> return ret;
> +}
>
I am not comfortable with this change.
find_uprobe() was suppose to return back a uprobe if and only if
the inode and offset match, However with your approach, we end up
returning a uprobe that isnt matching and one that isnt refcounted.
Moreover if even if we have a matching uprobe, we end up sending a
unrefcounted uprobe back.
>
> > +/*
> > + * For a given inode, build a list of probes that need to be inserted.
> > + */
> > +static void build_probe_list(struct inode *inode, struct list_head *head)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > + struct rb_node *n;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + n = uprobes_tree.rb_node;
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
> > + uprobe = __find_uprobe(inode, 0, &n);
>
>
> > + /*
> > + * If indeed there is a probe for the inode and with offset zero,
> > + * then lets release its reference. (ref got thro __find_uprobe)
> > + */
> > + if (uprobe)
> > + put_uprobe(uprobe);
>
> The above would make this ^ unneeded.
>
> n = &uprobe->rb_node;
>
> > + for (; n; n = rb_next(n)) {
> > + uprobe = rb_entry(n, struct uprobe, rb_node);
> > + if (uprobe->inode != inode)
> > + break;
> > + list_add(&uprobe->pending_list, head);
> > + atomic_inc(&uprobe->ref);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
> > +}
>
> If this ever gets to be a latency issue (linear lookup under spinlock)
> you can use a double lock (mutex+spinlock) and require that modification
> acquires both but lookups can get away with either.
>
> That way you can do the linear search using a mutex instead of the
> spinlock.
>
Okay,
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Called from mmap_region.
> > + * called with mm->mmap_sem acquired.
> > + *
> > + * Return -ve no if we fail to insert probes and we cannot
> > + * bail-out.
> > + * Return 0 otherwise. i.e :
> > + * - successful insertion of probes
> > + * - (or) no possible probes to be inserted.
> > + * - (or) insertion of probes failed but we can bail-out.
> > + */
> > +int mmap_uprobe(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > + struct list_head tmp_list;
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe, *u;
> > + struct inode *inode;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!valid_vma(vma))
> > + return ret; /* Bail-out */
> > +
> > + inode = igrab(vma->vm_file->f_mapping->host);
> > + if (!inode)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tmp_list);
> > + mutex_lock(&uprobes_mmap_mutex);
> > + build_probe_list(inode, &tmp_list);
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(uprobe, u, &tmp_list, pending_list) {
> > + loff_t vaddr;
> > +
> > + list_del(&uprobe->pending_list);
> > + if (!ret && uprobe->consumers) {
> > + vaddr = vma->vm_start + uprobe->offset;
> > + vaddr -= vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + if (vaddr < vma->vm_start || vaddr >= vma->vm_end)
> > + continue;
> > + ret = install_breakpoint(vma->vm_mm, uprobe);
> > +
> > + if (ret && (ret == -ESRCH || ret == -EEXIST))
> > + ret = 0;
> > + }
> > + put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&uprobes_mmap_mutex);
> > + iput(inode);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void dec_mm_uprobes_count(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + struct inode *inode)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe *uprobe;
> > + struct rb_node *n;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + n = uprobes_tree.rb_node;
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
> > + uprobe = __find_uprobe(inode, 0, &n);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If indeed there is a probe for the inode and with offset zero,
> > + * then lets release its reference. (ref got thro __find_uprobe)
> > + */
> > + if (uprobe)
> > + put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > + for (; n; n = rb_next(n)) {
> > + loff_t vaddr;
> > +
> > + uprobe = rb_entry(n, struct uprobe, rb_node);
> > + if (uprobe->inode != inode)
> > + break;
> > + vaddr = vma->vm_start + uprobe->offset;
> > + vaddr -= vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + if (vaddr < vma->vm_start || vaddr >= vma->vm_end)
> > + continue;
> > + atomic_dec(&vma->vm_mm->mm_uprobes_count);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&uprobes_treelock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Called in context of a munmap of a vma.
> > + */
> > +void munmap_uprobe(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > + struct inode *inode;
> > +
> > + if (!valid_vma(vma))
> > + return; /* Bail-out */
> > +
> > + if (!atomic_read(&vma->vm_mm->mm_uprobes_count))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + inode = igrab(vma->vm_file->f_mapping->host);
> > + if (!inode)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + dec_mm_uprobes_count(vma, inode);
> > + iput(inode);
> > + return;
> > +}
>
> One has to wonder why mmap_uprobe() can be one function but
> munmap_uprobe() cannot.
>
I didnt understand this comment, Can you please elaborate?
mmap_uprobe uses build_probe_list and munmap_uprobe uses
dec_mm_uprobes_count.
--
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>