[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131014184548.GG2675@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:45:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>,
David Smith <dsmith@...hat.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Martin Cermak <mcermak@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] uprobes: Change uprobe_copy_process() to dup
return_instances
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:18:41PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> uprobe_copy_process() assumes that the new child doesn't need
> ->utask, it should be allocated by demand.
>
> But this is not true if the forking task has the pending ret-
> probes, the child should report them as well and thus it needs
> the copy of parent's ->return_instances chain. Otherwise the
> child crashes when it returns from the probed function.
So children don't automagically inherit the same probes (only though the
high level interface -- like perf), so wouldn't simply fixing up the
child stack be a solution?
If not; its not entirely clear to my why this isn't a good solution
based on these changelogs.
--
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