[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121221173741.GA21931@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:37:41 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>, Frank Eigler <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] uprobes: return probe implementation
On 12/21, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> There are RFC uretprobes implementation. I'd be grateful for any review.
Anton, I won't look at this series till Monday (at least).
But at first glance it needs a lot of cleanups and _fixes_.
If nothing else, ->return_instances logic looks very wrong (but again,
I didn't really read this series and I already had a beer ;).
Just for example. Suppose that you insert uretprobe at exit() in glibc().
IOW, handle_swbp(rp_trampoline_vaddr) never happens. Who will cleanup
utask->return_instances and kfree() return_instance's?
Or. return_consumer_del() simply removes uprobe_consumer. Again, somehow
we should free the "pending" return_instance's. Plus we should restore
the original return adresses connected to these return_instance's. Just
suppose that uretprobe_run_handlers() is called after uprobe has gone
away. In this case ri->uprobe points to nowhere.
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