[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308297836.13240.380.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:03:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3.0-rc2-tip 7/22] 7: uprobes: mmap and fork hooks.
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 10:20 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > void __unregister_uprobe(...)
> > {
> > uprobe = find_uprobe(); // ref++
> > if (delete_consumer(...)); // includes tree removal on last consumer
> > // implies we own the last ref
> > return; // consumers
> >
> > vma_prio_tree_foreach() {
> > // create list
> > }
> >
> > list_for_each_entry_safe() {
> > // remove from list
> > remove_breakpoint(); // unconditional, if it wasn't there
> > // its a nop anyway, can't get any new
> > // new probes on account of holding
> > // uprobes_mutex and mmap() doesn't see
> > // it due to tree removal.
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> This would have a bigger race.
> A breakpoint might be hit by which time the node is removed and we
> have no way to find out the uprobe. So we deliver an extra TRAP to the
> app.
Gah indeed. Back to the drawing board for me.
> > int mmap_uprobe(...)
> > {
> > spin_lock(&uprobes_treelock);
> > for_each_probe_in_inode() {
> > // create list;
> > }
> > spin_unlock(..);
> >
> > list_for_each_entry_safe() {
> > // remove from list
> > ret = install_breakpoint();
> > if (ret)
> > goto fail;
> > if (!uprobe_still_there()) // takes treelock
> > remove_breakpoint();
> > }
> >
> > return 0;
> >
> > fail:
> > list_for_each_entry_safe() {
> > // destroy list
> > }
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
>
>
> register_uprobe will race with mmap_uprobe's first pass.
> So we might end up with a vma that doesnot have a breakpoint inserted
> but inserted in all other vma that map to the same inode.
I'm not seeing this though, if mmap_uprobe() is before register_uprobe()
inserts the probe in the tree, the vma is already in the rmap and
register_uprobe() will find it in its vma walk. If its after,
mmap_uprobe() will find it and install, if a concurrent
register_uprobe()'s vma walk also finds it, it will -EEXISTS and ignore
the error.
--
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