lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-10-24 18:36    [W:0.096 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site