[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200120124022.GA14897@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:40:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <thoiland@...hat.com>,
Jean-Tsung Hsiao <jhsiao@...hat.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/uprobe: Fix double perf_event linking on
multiprobe uprobe
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:45:39AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> index 4ee703728aec..03e4e180058d 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h
> @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ struct trace_probe_event {
> struct trace_event_call call;
> struct list_head files;
> struct list_head probes;
> + char data[0];
> };
Would it make sense to make the above:
struct trace_uprobe_filter filter[0];
instead? That would ensure that alignment is respected. While I think
the current code works by accident.
> @@ -264,6 +263,14 @@ process_fetch_insn(struct fetch_insn *code, struct pt_regs *regs, void *dest,
> }
> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(process_fetch_insn)
>
> +static struct trace_uprobe_filter *
> +trace_uprobe_get_filter(struct trace_uprobe *tu)
> +{
> + struct trace_probe_event *event = tu->tp.event;
> +
> + return (struct trace_uprobe_filter *)&event->data[0];
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists