Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:22:30 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tracing/fprobe: Fix to check whether fprobe is registered correctly |
| |
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 23:19:33 +0900 "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> > > Since commit ab51e15d535e ("fprobe: Introduce FPROBE_FL_KPROBE_SHARED flag > for fprobe") introduced fprobe_kprobe_handler() for fprobe::f_op::func, > unregister_fprobe() fails to unregister the registered if user specifies > FPROBE_FL_KPROBE_SHARED flag. > To check it correctly, it should confirm the fprobe::f_op::func is either > fprobe_handler() or fprobe_kprobe_handler(). > > Fixes: ab51e15d535e ("fprobe: Introduce FPROBE_FL_KPROBE_SHARED flag for fprobe") > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> > --- > kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c > index aac63ca9c3d1..9000d8ea6274 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c > @@ -301,7 +301,8 @@ int unregister_fprobe(struct fprobe *fp) > { > int ret; > > - if (!fp || fp->ops.func != fprobe_handler) > + if (!fp || (fp->ops.func != fprobe_handler && > + fp->ops.func != fprobe_kprobe_handler)) > return -EINVAL; > > /*
Should we make this more paranoid?
if (!fp || (fprobe_shared_with_kprobes(fp) && fp->ops.func != fprobe_kprobe_handler) || (!fprobe_shared_with_kprobes(fp) && fp->ops.func != fprobe_handler))
Or is that over-kill?
-- Steve
| |