[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1322144017.2921.57.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:13:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>, tulasidhard@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3.2-rc2 4/30] uprobes: Define hooks for mmap/munmap.
On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 19:17 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2011-11-23 19:10:12]:
>
> > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 16:37 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > + ret = install_breakpoint(vma->vm_mm, uprobe);
> > > + if (ret == -EEXIST) {
> > > + atomic_inc(&vma->vm_mm->mm_uprobes_count);
> > > + ret = 0;
> > > + }
> >
> > Aren't you double counting that probe position here? The one that raced
> > you to inserting it will also have incremented that counter, no?
> >
>
> No we arent.
> Because register_uprobe can never race with mmap_uprobe and register
> before mmap_uprobe registers .(Once we start mmap_region,
> register_uprobe waits for the read_lock of mmap_sem.)
Still doesn't make any sense. Since you don't increment on success, one
has to assume install_breakpoint() will cause an increment. Therefore,
when we encounter -EEXIST we'll already have accounted for this
mm,inode,offset combination.
But I'll have another look at it, maybe I'm missing something
obvious :-)
> And we badly need this for mmap_uprobe case. Because when we do mremap,
> or vma_adjust(), we do a munmap_uprobe() followed by mmap_uprobe() which
> would have decremented the count but not removed it. So when we do a
> mmap_uprobe, we need to increment the count.
Well I see why the count needs to be correct, that's not the issue.
--
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