[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121124180228.GA30980@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:02:28 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] uprobes: Introduce uprobe->register_rwsem
Introduce uprobe->register_rwsem. It is taken for writing around
__uprobe_register/unregister.
Change handler_chain() to use this sem rather than consumer_rwsem.
The main reason for this change is that we have the nasty problem
with mmap_sem/consumer_rwsem dependency. filter_chain() needs to
protect uprobe->consumers like handler_chain(), but they can not
use the same lock. filter_chain() can be called under ->mmap_sem
(currently this is always true), but we want to allow ->handler()
to play with the probed task's memory, and this needs ->mmap_sem.
Alternatively we could use srcu, but synchronize_srcu() is very
slow and ->register_rwsem allows us to do more. In particular, we
can teach handler_chain() to do remove_breakpoint() if this bp is
"nacked" by all consumers, we know that we can't race with the
new consumer which does uprobe_register().
See also the next patches. uprobes_mutex[] is almost ready to die.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
---
kernel/events/uprobes.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index c80507d..03ffbb5 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ static atomic_t uprobe_events = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
struct uprobe {
struct rb_node rb_node; /* node in the rb tree */
atomic_t ref;
+ struct rw_semaphore register_rwsem;
struct rw_semaphore consumer_rwsem;
struct mutex copy_mutex; /* TODO: kill me and UPROBE_COPY_INSN */
struct list_head pending_list;
@@ -449,6 +450,7 @@ static struct uprobe *alloc_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset)
uprobe->inode = igrab(inode);
uprobe->offset = offset;
+ init_rwsem(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
init_rwsem(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
mutex_init(&uprobe->copy_mutex);
/* For now assume that the instruction need not be single-stepped */
@@ -476,10 +478,10 @@ static void handler_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
if (!test_bit(UPROBE_RUN_HANDLER, &uprobe->flags))
return;
- down_read(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
+ down_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
for (uc = uprobe->consumers; uc; uc = uc->next)
uc->handler(uc, regs);
- up_read(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
+ up_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
}
static void consumer_add(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct uprobe_consumer *uc)
@@ -873,9 +875,11 @@ int uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consumer *
mutex_lock(uprobes_hash(inode));
uprobe = alloc_uprobe(inode, offset);
if (uprobe) {
+ down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
ret = __uprobe_register(uprobe, uc);
if (ret)
__uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
+ up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
}
mutex_unlock(uprobes_hash(inode));
if (uprobe)
@@ -899,7 +903,9 @@ void uprobe_unregister(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, struct uprobe_consume
return;
mutex_lock(uprobes_hash(inode));
+ down_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
__uprobe_unregister(uprobe, uc);
+ up_write(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
mutex_unlock(uprobes_hash(inode));
put_uprobe(uprobe);
}
--
1.5.5.1
--
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