[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/17] uprobes: Allocate ->utask before handler_chain() for tracing handlers
(2013/12/11 0:57), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2013/12/09 15:20), Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> From: Oleg Nesterov <>
>>> uprobe_trace_print() and uprobe_perf_print() need to pass the additional
>>> info to call_fetch() methods, currently there is no simple way to do this.
>>> current->utask looks like a natural place to hold this info, but we need
>>> to allocate it before handler_chain().
>>> This is a bit unfortunate, perhaps we will find a better solution later,
>>> but this is simnple and should work right now.
>> Hmm, when this will happen?
> Perhaps never. Perhaps it will stay forever and we remove get_utask() from
> pre_ssout() (it is not needed after this patch).

Ah, OK, get_utask() is almost same as kzalloc().

> However I still think we can cleanup this. And to remind, we need to clean
> the usage of utask->vaddr in trace_uprobe.c anyway. We can either try to
> find another place to pass the info, or we can create a helper(s) for the
> tracing handlers to access (and populate if NULL) utask->handler_data.
> Note that this (probably) also makes sense because we can unexport
> "struct uprobe_task" (but this needs a couple of off-topic cleanups).
> We will see. Lets do the minimal change which can work right now, Namhyung
> has enough more serious problems ;)
>> and isn't it better to increment
>> miss-hit counter of the uprobe?
> What do you mean? This is not miss-hit and ->utask == NULL is quite normal.

But it could skip the handler_chain silently. It could confuse users
why their probe doesn't hit as expected.

> For example, on ppc it can be always NULL because ppc likely emulates the
> probed insn.

Hmm, in that case, should uprobes handlers never be called on ppc with
this change?

> Or did you mean that if get_utask() fails we should report this somehow?

I meant that if the uprobes hits some error and not work as expected,
it should be reported somehow to users, and miss-hit counter will be
a possible option.

Thank you,

IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-11 03:01    [W:0.077 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site