lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] uprobes: Ignore unsupported instructions in uprobe_mmap
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> [2012-08-02 16:17:57]:

> Forgot to mention...
>
> On 08/02, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > While at it, add a missing put_uprobe() in the path where uprobe_mmap()
> > races with uprobe_unregister().
> > ...
> > @@ -1051,8 +1051,10 @@ int uprobe_mmap(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > if (ret == -EEXIST) {
> > ret = 0;
> >
> > - if (!is_swbp_at_addr(vma->vm_mm, vaddr))
> > + if (!is_swbp_at_addr(vma->vm_mm, vaddr)) {
> > + put_uprobe(uprobe);
> > continue;
> > + }
>
> Yes, this part looks correct.
>
> In fact, I think this is not really correct anyway (wrt counter)
> but we are going to kill it.
>
>

Are you expecting the counter to be decreased/increased here?

This is case where the uprobe_mmap() and uprobe_unregister() raced, and
by the time install_breakpoint() was called by uprobe_mmap(), there were
no consumers. i.e there are no uprobe->consumers and the underlying
instruction is still not a breakpoint instruction.

Since we are refusing to add a breakpoint and that there is no
breakpoint, there is no need to increment/decrement the counter here.

Do let me know if I have missed something.

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-08-02 19:41    [W:0.129 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site