[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110126165645.GP19725@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:26:45 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 5/20] 5: Uprobes:
register/unregister probes.
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2011-01-26 16:45:56]:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 21:00 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2011-01-26 11:11:48]:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 13:25 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + list_add(&mm->uprobes_list, &tmp_list);
> > > > > > + mm->uprobes_vaddr = vma->vm_start + offset;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + spin_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > Both this and unregister are racy, what is to say:
> > > > > - the vma didn't get removed from the mm
> > > > > - no new matching vma got added
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > register_uprobe, unregister_uprobe, uprobe_mmap are all synchronized by
> > > > uprobes_mutex. So I dont see one unregister_uprobe getting thro when
> > > > another register_uprobe is working with a vma.
> > > >
> > > > If I am missing something elementary, please explain a bit more.
> > >
> > > afaict you're not holding the mmap_sem, so userspace can simply unmap
> > > the vma.
> >
> > When we do the actual insert/remove of the breakpoint we hold the
> > mmap_sem. During the actual insertion/removal, if the vma for the
> > specific inode is not found, we just come out without doing the
> > actual insertion/deletion.
>
> Right, but then install_uprobe() should:
>
> - lookup the vma relating to the address you stored,
We already do this thro get_user_pages in write_opcode().
> - validate that the vma is indeed a map of the right inode
We can add a check in write_opcode( we need to pass the inode to
write_opcode).
> - validate that the offset of the probe corresponds with the stored
> address
I am not clear on this. We would have derived the address from the
offset. So is that we check for
(vaddr == vma->vm_start + uprobe->offset)
>
> Otherwise you can race with unmap/map and end up installing the probe in
> a random location.
>
> Also, I think the whole thing goes funny if someone maps the same text
> twice ;-)
I am not sure if we can map the same text twice. If something like
this is possible then we would have 2 addresses for each function.
So how does the linker know which address to jump to out of the 2 or
multiple matching addresses. What would be the usecases for same
text being mapped multiple times and both being executable?
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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