On 08/13, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2018 01:27 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> >> +
> >> +static void delayed_uprobe_delete(struct delayed_uprobe *du)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!du)
> >> + return;
> > Do we really need this check?
>
> Not necessary though, but I would still like to keep it for a safety.
Heh. I tried to ignore all minor problems in this version, but now that Song
mentioned this unnecessary check...
Personally I really dislike the checks like this one.
- It can confuse the reader who will try to understand the purpose
- it can hide a bug if delayed_uprobe_delete(du) is actually called
with du == NULL.
IMO, you should either remove it and let the kernel crash (to notice the
problem), or turn it into
if (WARN_ON(!du))
return;
which is self-documented and reports the problem without kernel crash.
> >> + rc_vma = find_ref_ctr_vma(uprobe, mm);
> >> +
> >> + if (rc_vma) {
> >> + rc_vaddr = offset_to_vaddr(rc_vma, uprobe->ref_ctr_offset);
> >> + ret = __update_ref_ctr(mm, rc_vaddr, is_register ? 1 : -1);
> >> +
> >> + if (is_register)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> > Mixing __update_ref_ctr() here and delayed_uprobe_add() in the same
> > function is a little confusing (at least for me). How about we always use
> > delayed uprobe for uprobe_mmap() and use non-delayed in other case(s)?
>
>
> No. delayed_uprobe_add() is needed for uprobe_register() case to handle race
> between uprobe_register() and process creation.
Yes.
But damn, process creation (exec) is trivial. We could add a new uprobe_exec()
hook and avoid delayed_uprobe_install() in uprobe_mmap().
Afaics, the really problematic case is dlopen() which can race with _register()
too, right?
Oleg.
