There is no need to delay putting either path or task to deallocation step. It can be done right after bpf_uprobe_unregister. Between release and dealloc, there could be still some running BPF programs, but they don't access either task or path, only data in link->uprobes, so it is safe to do. On the other hand, doing path_put() in dealloc callback makes this dealloc sleepable because path_put() itself might sleep. Which is problematic due to the need to call uprobe's dealloc through call_rcu(), which is what is done in the next bug fix patch. So solve the problem by releasing these resources early. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240328052426.3042617-1-andrii@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx> (cherry picked from commit e9c856cabefb71d47b2eeb197f72c9c88e9b45b0) --- kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c index 1d76f3b014ae..4d49a9f47e68 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -3065,6 +3065,9 @@ static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_release(struct bpf_link *link) umulti_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link, link); bpf_uprobe_unregister(&umulti_link->path, umulti_link->uprobes, umulti_link->cnt); + if (umulti_link->task) + put_task_struct(umulti_link->task); + path_put(&umulti_link->path); } static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_dealloc(struct bpf_link *link) @@ -3072,9 +3075,6 @@ static void bpf_uprobe_multi_link_dealloc(struct bpf_link *link) struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link *umulti_link; umulti_link = container_of(link, struct bpf_uprobe_multi_link, link); - if (umulti_link->task) - put_task_struct(umulti_link->task); - path_put(&umulti_link->path); kvfree(umulti_link->uprobes); kfree(umulti_link); } -- 2.43.0
