Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:38:40 -0500 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] tracing: precise log info for kretprobe addr err |
| |
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 19:19:27 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/26, Jianlin Lv wrote: > > > > When trying to create kretprobe with the wrong function symbol in tracefs; > > The error is triggered in the register_trace_kprobe() and recorded as > > FAIL_REG_PROBE issue, > > > > Example: > > $ cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing > > $ echo 'r:myprobe ERROR_SYMBOL_XXX ret=%x0' >> kprobe_events > > bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument > > $ cat error_log > > [142797.347877] trace_kprobe: error: Failed to register probe event > > Command: r:myprobe ERROR_SYMBOL_XXX ret=%x0 > > ^ > > > > This error can be detected in the parameter parsing stage, the effect of > > applying this patch is as follows: > > > > $ echo 'r:myprobe ERROR_SYMBOL_XXX ret=%x0' >> kprobe_events > > bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument > > $ cat error_log > > [415.89]trace_kprobe: error: Retprobe address must be an function entry > > Command: r:myprobe ERROR_SYMBOL_XXX ret=%x0 > > IOW, the "offset != 0" check removed by this patch is obviously wrong, right? > > Agreed, but... > > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c > > @@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static int trace_kprobe_create(int argc, const char *argv[]) > > flags |= TPARG_FL_RETURN; > > if (kprobe_on_func_entry(NULL, symbol, offset)) > > flags |= TPARG_FL_FENTRY; > > - if (offset && is_return && !(flags & TPARG_FL_FENTRY)) { > > + if (!strchr(symbol, ':') && is_return && !(flags & TPARG_FL_FENTRY)) { > > but why did you add the strchr(':') check instead? > > I was really puzzled until I found the this email from Masami: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210120131406.5a992c1e434681750a0cd5d4@kernel.org/ > > So I leave this to you and Masami, but perhaps you can document this check at > least in the changelog? >
No, you are correct. That needs to be documented in the code.
I was about to comment that the check requires a comment ;-)
Jianlin,
Care to send a v4 of the patch with a comment to why we are checking the symbol for ':'.
Thanks!
-- Steve
| |