lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/6] uprobes: return probe implementation
On 12/21, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> There are RFC uretprobes implementation. I'd be grateful for any review.

Anton, I won't look at this series till Monday (at least).

But at first glance it needs a lot of cleanups and _fixes_.

If nothing else, ->return_instances logic looks very wrong (but again,
I didn't really read this series and I already had a beer ;).

Just for example. Suppose that you insert uretprobe at exit() in glibc().
IOW, handle_swbp(rp_trampoline_vaddr) never happens. Who will cleanup
utask->return_instances and kfree() return_instance's?

Or. return_consumer_del() simply removes uprobe_consumer. Again, somehow
we should free the "pending" return_instance's. Plus we should restore
the original return adresses connected to these return_instance's. Just
suppose that uretprobe_run_handlers() is called after uprobe has gone
away. In this case ri->uprobe points to nowhere.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-21 19:21    [W:0.097 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site