[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180418102504.7673a7f3@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:25:04 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Howard McLauchlan <hmclauchlan@...com>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: fix bad use of igrab in trace_uprobe.c
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:03:42 +0200
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > @@ -937,7 +928,8 @@ probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, struct trace_event_file *file,
> > goto err_flags;
> >
> > tu->consumer.filter = filter;
> > - ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
> > + ret = uprobe_register(d_inode(tu->path.dentry), tu->offset,
> > + &tu->consumer);
>
> It is not entirely clear how the lifetime of uprobe relates to the
> lifetime of trace_uprobe. Is the uprobe object never going to survive
> its creator trace_uprobe object?
Not exactly sure what you mean here.
The trace_uprobe (the probe event) is created, it doesn't do anything
until it is enabled. This function is called when it is enabled. The
trace_uprobe (probe event) can not be deleted while it is enabled
(EBUSY).
Are you asking what happens if the file is deleted while it has probe?
That I don't know about (haven't tried it out). But I would hope that
it keeps a reference to the inode, isn't that what the igrab is for?
And is now being replaced by a reference on the path, or is that the
problem?
-- Steve
>
> If that's the case, it warrants a comment. If that's not the case,
> then the path would need to be passed to uprobe_resister() which would
> need to obtain its own reference.
>
> > if (ret)
> > goto err_buffer;
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists