[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120423172957.GA29708@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:29:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] uprobes: kill uprobes_srcu/uprobe_srcu_id
On 04/23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 12:54 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2012-04-23 09:14:00]:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 20:37 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > Say, a user wants to probe /sbin/init only. What if init forks?
> > > > We should remove breakpoints from child->mm somehow.
> > >
> > > How is that hard? dup_mmap() only copies the VMAs, this doesn't actually
> > > copy the breakpoint. So the child doesn't have a breakpoint to be
> > > removed.
> > >
> >
> > Because the pages are COWED, the breakpoint gets copied over to the
> > child. If we dont want the breakpoints to be not visible to the child,
> > then we would have to remove them explicitly based on the filter (i.e if
> > and if we had inserted breakpoints conditionally based on filter).
>
> I thought we didn't COW shared maps since the fault handler will fill in
> the pages right and only anon stuff gets copied.
Confused...
Do you mean the "Don't copy ptes where a page fault will fill them correctly"
check in copy_page_range() ? Yes, but this vma should have ->anon_vma != NULL
if it has the breakpoint installed by uprobes.
Yes, we do not COW this page during dup_mmap(), but the new child's pte
should point to the same page with bp.
OK, I guess I misunderstood.
> > Once we add the conditional breakpoint insertion (which is tricky),
>
> How so?
I agree with Srikar this doesn't look simple to me. First of all,
currently it is not easy to find the tasks which use this ->mm.
OK, we can simply do for_each_process() under tasklist, but this is
not very nice.
But again, to me this is not the main problem.
> > Conditional removal
> > of breakpoints in fork path would just be an extension of the
> > conditional breakpoint insertion.
>
> Right, I don't think that removal is particularly hard if needed.
I agree that remove_breakpoint() itself is not that hard, probably.
But the whole idea of filtering is not clear to me. I mean, when/how
we should call the filter, and what should be the argument.
task_struct? Probably, but I am not sure.
And btw fork()->dup_mmap() should call the filter too. Suppose that
uprobe_consumer wants to trace the task T and its children, this looks
very natural.
And we need to rework uprobe_register(). It can't simply return if
this (inode, offset) already has the consumer.
So far I think this needs more thinking. And imho we should merge the
working code Srikar already has, then try to add this (agreed, very
important) optimization.
Oleg.
--
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