[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:55:15 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Cc: Hemant Kumar Shaw <hkshaw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mikhail.Kulemin@...ibm.com,
srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
systemtap@...rceware.org, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: Fix limiting un-nested return probes
On 09/09, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Not sure, but I can be easily wrong... afaics we need something like below, no?
> > Anton?
>
> Oleg, your guess is correct.
>
> My original intention was to limit by depth the chained only probes. But later,
> after your review, we've decided /based on safety concerns/ to limit it hard.
Chained or not, we allocate return_instance every time, so we certainly
need to account to limit the depth unconditionally. Unless we reuse the
same return_instance if chained, but this is another story.
> The decrement 'utask->depth--;' in my own tree is above the 'if (!chained)'
> check. I think it got mangled somehow when I rebased the code before I sent it
> to lkml.
OK, thanks, I'll write the changelog and re-send the patch below.
> Anton.
>
>
> > Oleg.
> >
> > --- x/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > +++ x/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> > @@ -1682,12 +1682,10 @@ static bool handle_trampoline(struct pt_
> > tmp = ri;
> > ri = ri->next;
> > kfree(tmp);
> > + utask->depth--;
> >
> > if (!chained)
> > break;
> > -
> > - utask->depth--;
> > -
> > BUG_ON(!ri);
> > }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists